Rethinking Hybridity in Postcolonial Contexts: What Changes and What Persists? The Tunisian case of Poulina’s managers
Rethinking Hybridity in Postcolonial Contexts: What Changes and What Persists? The Tunisian case of Poulina’s managers
复制标题
重新思考后殖民背景下的混合性：什么改变了，什么持续存在？
DOI：
10.1177/0170840613499751
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
H. Yousfi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Yousfi
本文借鉴管理学的后殖民研究，强调了对混合过程采用情境化方法的重要性，首先，考虑到混合性产生的历史和文化背景的重要性，其次，有助于识别当西方管理实践被引入发展中国家时发生变化和持续存在的因素。本文通过推论分析，展示了突尼斯 Poulina 公司的经理（接受过西方传统培训）在解释如何通过实施美国管理模式实现公司现代化时所提供的描述的矛盾性质。管理者的矛盾心理有两种不同的形式。首先，虽然他们坚持使用美国的管理模式来克服“功能失调”的家庭组织体系，似乎已经内化了现代化的言论，但他们同时通过脱离法国殖民组织模式来表达抵抗。其次，当他们描述美国管理实践的实施以及工人如何抵制这些实践时，他们似乎已经通过当地的文化意义框架含蓄地协商和重新解释了这些做法。基于这些发现，我认为混合性最好被理解为两个要素的交织——实践的转变和文化的连续性——其中身份建构、地方权力动态和文化意义框架共同塑造了管理实践的混合过程。
Drawing on postcolonial studies of management, this article highlights the importance of adopting a contextualized approach to hybridization processes that, first, takes into account the importance of the historical and cultural contexts from which hybridity emerges and, second, helps to identify the elements that change as well as those that persist when western management practices are imported into developing countries. Using a discursive analysis, this article shows the ambivalent nature of the accounts given by managers (trained in western traditions) of the Tunisian company Poulina as they explain how they modernized their company through the implementation of a US management model. The managers’ ambivalence takes on two distinct forms. First, while they seem to have internalized the rhetoric of modernization in insisting on how they used the US management model to overcome the ‘dysfunctional’ family-based organizational system, they simultaneously express resistance by detaching themselves from the French colonial organizational model. Second, when they describe the implementation of the US management practices and how workers resisted them, it seems that they have implicitly negotiated and reinterpreted these practices via a local cultural framework of meaning. Based on these findings, I argue that hybridity is best understood as an interweaving of two elements – the transformation of practices and cultural continuity – in which identity construction, local power dynamics and cultural frameworks of meaning jointly shape the hybridization process of management practices.