Post-Colonial
[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Post-Colonial ] [ Post-Instrumental ] [ Renaissance ]

New Workshop
Management Workshop in Cape Town April 2004

New Book
'Management and Change in Africa'

Book order information

New Projects
NGOs in Africa

MNCs in Africa

Entrepreneurship in Africa

New Resources
For the book - 'Management and Change in Africa'

Resources for Management and Change in Africa

About the author of this website

Management Systems in Africa

Post-Colonial Management Systems in Africa

The pejorative view of 'African' management found in the literature is largely identifying the legacy of the colonial era.

The Developed-Developing World Dichotomy

Description of management in Africa has largely been informed by the developed-developing world dichotomy, and exemplified in the work of Blunt and Jones (1992), one of the most thorough descriptions, and that of Jaeger and Kanungo (1990) of management in ‘developing’ countries in general. This is particularly in the distinction made between ‘Western’ management styles (teamwork, empowerment, etc) and ‘African’ styles (centralized, bureaucratic, authoritarian, etc.) (Blunt and Jones, 1997).

Theory X Management

However, systems of management identified in the literature as ‘African’ (Blunt and Jones, 1992; 1997) or as ‘developing’ (Jaeger and Kanungo, 1990) are mostly representative of a post-colonial heritage, reflecting a theory X style of management (from McGregor) which generally mistrusts human nature with a need to impose controls on workers, allowing little worker initiative, and rewarding a narrow set of skills simply by financial means. This system is identified in the literature as being ‘tacked on’ to African society originally by the colonial power (Carlsson, 1998, and Dia, 1996), and being perpetuated after independence, perhaps as a result of vested political and economic interest, or purely because this was the way managers in the colonial era where trained. Quite often the literature conveys this as a monolithic system of management that is discernable throughout Africa, and even throughout the ‘developing’ world. There may, in fact be substantial differences in these ‘tacked-on’ systems among the hang-overs from different forms of colonial administration. There will also be differences between public and private sector administration, although commentators such as Blunt and Jones (1992) have noted similarities. In the following, the commonalities are referred to, with differences pointed out where appropriate.

Organizational Systems

Strategies

In terms of strategies there is an emphasis on inputs (particularly in the public sectors such as increasing expenditure on health, education and housing after independence) to the exclusion of outputs such as quantity, quality, service and client satisfaction (Blunt and Jones, 1992), or the supply side rather than the demand side of capacity building (Dia, 1996). Best use is not being made of inputs or the supply to organizations (generated through improvement in education and training) through capacity utilization within organizations. There is a lack of results and objectives orientation, and a possible associated risk aversion. Kiggundu (1989) adds that there is typically a lack of a clear mission statement or sense of direction.

He also characterizes organizational structures, in terms of their governance and decision making as having top management that is overworked, having authoritarian and paternalistic decision styles with centralized control and decision making  (Kiggundu,1989).  This is also reflected in Blunt and Jones’s (1997) view that leadership is highly centralized, hierarchical and authoritarian. They also add that there is an emphasis on control mechanisms, rules and procedures rather than performance (and a high reluctance to judge performance), a bureaucratic resistance to change and a high level of conservatism, and importance of kinship networks.

Organizational Character

The character of such organizations may well reflect public sector, parastatal or recently privatised organizations that are not foreign owned.  The public sector and state owned enterprises in ‘developing’ countries generally, and sub-Saharan Africa specifically have been widely criticized as being too large, bureaucratic and change resistant (Blunt and Jones, 1992). There is broad agreement concerning the poor performance of the public sector, which has engendered support for a reduction in its size (Balogun, 1989) and an assertion that it is detrimental to the development of entrepreneurship and competitive production (Kiggundu, 1988). Some of the inadequacies which Joergensen (1990) draws attention to in relation to state owned enterprises in East Africa, include lack of clear objectives, over-staffing, lack of job descriptions and job evaluation, lack of incentives, and political interference, as well as poor infrastructure and lack of systems. These all point to the inefficiencies. Yet there is little empirical evidence to suggest that private sector organizations are any better equipped to meet the challenges of change and development in Africa (Blunt and Jones, 1992). Montgomery’s (1987) study among SADC countries suggests private sector organizations are no more rational in goal seeking than the public sector. Part of the inefficiency of post-colonial organizational systems may be the levels of corruption and ‘unethical’ behaviour towards their stakeholders. This has been well documented in the literature (e.g. de Sardan, 1999).

Internal Policies

Internal policies may be discriminatory as a result of preferences given to in-group or family members. Kanungo and Jaeger (1990) suggest that because of the associative thinking in developing countries, there is a tendency for behaviour in organizations to be context-dependent, rather than the developed country orientation towards context-independent behaviour orientation where explicit and universal rules apply to a situation rather than the situation and context determining the responses to it. This may lead to decisions based on relationships rather than the application of universal rules, and may therefore be regarded as discriminatory. A reflection also of the theory X nature of management and general distrust of human nature, as well as a lack of organizational democracy may be revealed in employee policies aimed at duties of workers rather than of rights.

Internal Climate

The internal climate of organizations may be revealed in employee alienation. Understaffing, poor motivation, risk aversion and unwillingness to take independent action; close supervision of subordinates with little delegation; operations often inefficient and high cost with low productivity, over-staffing, under-utilizations, poor pay and poor morale indicated by high turnover and absenteeism, are all features which Kiggundu (1989) recounts. Through the general underdevelopment of the economy and the tenuous status of many jobs, unions are likely to be weak and often subjugated to wider political interests (Fashoyin and Matanmi, 1996). Diversity, including ethnicity and gender does seem to be an issue (Merrill-Sands and Holvino, 2000; although this in inadequately treated in the literature except that pertaining to South Africa). This may also be a reflection of discriminatory policies based on context-dependency, and promotion by ascription (who you are rather than what you have achieved)

External Policies and Management Expertise

As a result of an inputs focus (Blunt and Jones, 1992; Dia, 1996) external policies regarding customers and clients are likely not to be overt, and lacking in results orientation. Kiggundu (1989), having suggested that top managers are likely to be overworked with a reluctance to delegate work, asserts that they are typically learned, articulate and well travelled. However, at middle management levels there are weak systems and controls, inadequate managerial skills and a lack of industrial knowledge. This is reflected in the general low levels of managerial expertise.

Management Attributes

Attributes of managers operating within this system would be expected to derive from the overall management system operating in an organization. With a control orientation of post-colonial systems, and a self-perpetuating inputs orientations, managers who fit in well could be expected to be motivated by control features of their jobs and economic security. While little research has been undertaken on management motivation in Africa, those few studies do seem to support this supposition (Blunt and Jones, 1992, report one study in Kenya by Blunt in 1976 and one undertaken in Malawi by Jones in 1986).

Management Commitment

The direction of management commitment can also be derived from the above discussion. An indication of a commitment to ‘business’ objectives involves the pursuit of end results at the expense of means, although not reflecting an achievement orientation (Montgomery, 1987 noted a regard for internal aspects of the organization rather than policy issues, development goals or public welfare, remarking on an aloofness of managers in the public sector). This may reflect an ethical disregard for wider stakeholders, and a pursuit of corporate objectives as they dovetail with own objectives (Kiggundu, 1989, underlines the political nature of this agenda). For example, de Sardan (1999) argues that corruption is embedded in the logics of such practices as negotiation and gift giving, and is both conspicuous and generalized within the administration of organizations in Africa. There is also evidence, from the discussion above, of family influence in organizations, and commitment of managers may well be directed to these family connections.

Management Principles

Management principles may be related to an external locus of control of ‘developing’ countries where events are considered not within the individual’s control, where creative potential is regarded as being limited, and people are generally fixed in their ways and not malleable or changeable (Kanungo and Jaeger, 1990). This may well reflect also a mistrust of human nature, and a belief in the undisciplined nature of African workers to industrial life (Abudu, 1986).  Decisions are focused in the past and present rather than the future (Kanungo and Jaeger, 1990; Montgomery, 1987) and therefore may be deontological in nature rather than teleological. Action is focused on the short term, and success orientation may be moralistic rather than pragmatic as a result. This may reflect a lack of achievement orientation and a status orientation as a management principle. A passive-reactive orientation (Kanungo and Jaeger, 1990) is assumed. Again, this may give rise to a theory X conception of management.

Management Practices

The way these principles are manifested in management practices is widely accepted in the existing literature as in authoritarian management styles with reliance on the hierarchy, use of rank, low egalitarianism, and a lack of openness in communication and information giving  (Montgomery, 1987; Blunt and Jones, 1992; Blunt and Jones, 1997). This may lead to conclusions that the main management orientations within post-colonial management systems are towards managing internal processes, and managing power relations.

An Historical Legacy

The perceptions created by this conceptualisation of  ‘African management’ within a developed-developing world paradigm may not be useful (fatalistic, resistant to change, reactive, short-termist, authoritarian, risk reducing, context dependent, associative and basing decisions on relationship criteria, rather than universalistic criteria) when directly contrasted with management in the ‘developed’ world, however much it may reflect the realities of many organizations operating in Africa (although bearing in mind differences derived from different colonial legacies, and differences among public and private sectors). Implied within this conceptualisation is that the developing world should be ‘developed’ to become more like the developed world. However, its may be thought of as an historical legacy from colonial involvement in Africa of the ‘developed’ world. Next

Post-instrumental systems

African renaissance systems

Bibliography

Up

AfricaManagement.org © Terence Jackson 2002