Towards advancing African management scholarship

IF 0.9 Q4 MANAGEMENT
K. Ibeh, J. Eyong, K. Amaeshi
{"title":"Towards advancing African management scholarship","authors":"K. Ibeh, J. Eyong, K. Amaeshi","doi":"10.1108/jmh-11-2021-0061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper aims to address the main arguments put forward in Grietjie Verhoef’s article and contribute to a wider debate among management scholars on the role of indigenous theories. It challenges the view of African management as illusory and points to the rising support for indigenous theories as indicative of the weakening of the unquestioned dominance of universal theories.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis paper takes a conceptual and critically reflective approach, underpinned by a 360-degree evaluation of pertinent literature and theoretical arguments.\n\n\nFindings\nThis paper reveals an underlying symmetry and interconnectedness, anchored on a shared communal ethos, among Afrocentric management concepts, specifically Ubuntu, Ekpe and Igbo apprenticeship systems. This symmetry points to an underlying indigenous management theory that begs to be further conceptualised, evidenced and advanced.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThis paper affirms Verhoef’s demand for Ubuntu, Ekpe, Igbo apprenticeship system to be more rigorously developed and theoretically coherent and urges scholars to intensify effort towards advancing the conceptual and empirical foundations of African management. Echoing Mahatma Gandhi’s timeless counsel, this paper calls on critics of African management to join the effort to bring about the change they wish to see in African management theorising.\n\n\nSocial implications\nThis paper disavows the alleged effort to impose a single “African management” model or perpetuate the “colonial/indigenous” binary divide but equally cautions against an effort to veto scholarly striving for a common identity, to learn from history or not embrace collective amnesia. As examples from the USA and Europe show, diversity, even heterogeneity, needs not to preclude the forging of a commonly shared identity complemented with appropriate sub-identities.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis paper links the African management-centred themes addressed by Verhoef to the wider debate among management scholars about lessening the dominance of universal theories and allowing space for context-resonant indigenous theories. It calls on African management scholars to invest the premium and intensified effort towards building a more robust and coherent body of indigenous theory that will have the capacity and efficacy to inform, explain and advance organisational practice and outcomes across Africa.\n","PeriodicalId":45819,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jmh-11-2021-0061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to address the main arguments put forward in Grietjie Verhoef’s article and contribute to a wider debate among management scholars on the role of indigenous theories. It challenges the view of African management as illusory and points to the rising support for indigenous theories as indicative of the weakening of the unquestioned dominance of universal theories. Design/methodology/approach This paper takes a conceptual and critically reflective approach, underpinned by a 360-degree evaluation of pertinent literature and theoretical arguments. Findings This paper reveals an underlying symmetry and interconnectedness, anchored on a shared communal ethos, among Afrocentric management concepts, specifically Ubuntu, Ekpe and Igbo apprenticeship systems. This symmetry points to an underlying indigenous management theory that begs to be further conceptualised, evidenced and advanced. Research limitations/implications This paper affirms Verhoef’s demand for Ubuntu, Ekpe, Igbo apprenticeship system to be more rigorously developed and theoretically coherent and urges scholars to intensify effort towards advancing the conceptual and empirical foundations of African management. Echoing Mahatma Gandhi’s timeless counsel, this paper calls on critics of African management to join the effort to bring about the change they wish to see in African management theorising. Social implications This paper disavows the alleged effort to impose a single “African management” model or perpetuate the “colonial/indigenous” binary divide but equally cautions against an effort to veto scholarly striving for a common identity, to learn from history or not embrace collective amnesia. As examples from the USA and Europe show, diversity, even heterogeneity, needs not to preclude the forging of a commonly shared identity complemented with appropriate sub-identities. Originality/value This paper links the African management-centred themes addressed by Verhoef to the wider debate among management scholars about lessening the dominance of universal theories and allowing space for context-resonant indigenous theories. It calls on African management scholars to invest the premium and intensified effort towards building a more robust and coherent body of indigenous theory that will have the capacity and efficacy to inform, explain and advance organisational practice and outcomes across Africa.
致力于推进非洲管理学术
目的本文旨在解决Grietjie Verhoef文章中提出的主要论点,并有助于管理学者就本土理论的作用展开更广泛的辩论。它挑战了非洲管理的虚幻观点,并指出对本土理论的支持不断增加,这表明普遍理论毫无疑问的主导地位正在削弱。设计/方法论/方法本文采用了一种概念性和批判性反思的方法,以对相关文献和理论论点的360度评估为基础。发现这篇论文揭示了以非洲为中心的管理理念,特别是Ubuntu、Ekpe和Igbo学徒制之间潜在的对称性和相互联系,基于共同的社区精神。这种对称性指向了一种潜在的本土管理理论,该理论需要进一步的概念化、证明和推进。研究局限性/含义本文肯定了Verhoef对Ubuntu、Ekpe、Igbo学徒制的要求,即更严格地发展和理论上的连贯性,并敦促学者们加大努力,推进非洲管理的概念和经验基础。与圣雄甘地永恒的建议相呼应,本文呼吁非洲管理的批评者加入到他们希望看到的非洲管理理论的变革中来。社会含义本文否认了所谓的强加单一“非洲管理”模式或延续“殖民地/土著”二元鸿沟的努力,但同样警告不要否决学术界争取共同身份、从历史中学习或不接受集体健忘症的努力。正如美国和欧洲的例子所表明的那样,多样性,甚至异质性,这篇论文将Verhoef提出的以非洲管理为中心的主题与管理学者之间关于减少普遍理论的主导地位和为与背景共鸣的本土理论留出空间的更广泛辩论联系起来。它呼吁非洲管理学者投入溢价,加紧努力,建立一个更强大、更连贯的本土理论体系,该体系将有能力和效力为整个非洲的组织实践和成果提供信息、解释和推进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
50.00%
发文量
28
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信