Writing Africa into MOS: The dangerous perpetuation of “Tribe(s)” and other misrepresentations

Abstract

We critique the use of “tribe” in management and organization studies (MOS) research, aiming to unsettle its normative acceptance as a way to describe ethnic groups in Africa. We draw from postcolonial theory to illuminate the invention of “tribes” by European colonizers to subjugate and control African people during colonialism. Our analysis reveals the various ways the term “tribe” has been employed in MOS research and the meanings attached to it. We ask why “tribe” appears to be the default characterization of ethnic groups in Africa, given its racist and stereotypical connotations. The genealogy of “tribe” and, primarily, its construction during colonialism, suggests the need for caution in using it as a valid representation of ethnic groups in Africa. We argue that its continued use, along with other misrepresentations of the continent, reproduces racist colonial and neocolonial tropes of the continent. Instead, we urge MOS researchers to use ethnic groups, which have become the default concept for distinguishing groups based on culture, language, and ancestry.

Keywords

Management and organization studies (MOS)Africa postcolonial theory neocolonial tribe ethnicity ethnic groups institutional voids racism

Colonial expeditions were not just a form of invasion, nor was their purpose inspection. They were determined efforts at inscription. By putting regions on a map and native words on a list, explorers laid the first, and deepest foundations, for colonial power. By giving proof of the “scientific” nature of their enterprise, they exercised power in a pure subtle form—as the power to name, to describe and to classify. Fabian (1991: 24)

Introduction

The terms “tribe’¹ and “tribal” have been historically prominent in anthropology’s study of Indigenous peoples, primarily in Africa and India (e.g. Béteille, 1986; Godelier, 1973; Mitchell, 1970; Xaxa, 2005), as well as in discussions of ‘‘tribal’’ politics in postcolonial nations. Evidence of its use in management and organization studies (MOS) research dates back to the 1980s (e.g. Bryman, 1993; Camerer and Vepsalainen, 1988; Shanahan, 1996). While some MOS scholars have acknowledged the problems with the term (e.g. Jackson, 2013; Kamoche, 2000), others use it without questioning its ontology and origins.

For example, some researchers use “tribe” as a predictor of individual and organizational outcomes in Africa. “Tribe” has been used to examine the relationship between “tribal” diversity and national productivity (Zoogah, 2016a) and firm performance (e.g. Zoogah, 2016b). It is also used to understand Indigenous leadership (Mishra and Maiko, 2017; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007; Zoogah, 2020); entrepreneurship behavior and family business dynamics (e.g. Devine and Kiggundu, 2016; Igwe et al., 2021; Khavul et al., 2009) and in international business research (e.g. Mbalyohere and Lawton, 2022; Peprah et al., 2022) Other researchers position “tribe” as an essential cultural feature of Africa (e.g. Beugré, 2020; Liedong, 2022; Zoogah, 2022), sometimes portraying it as an inherently negative factor and at other times as a source of pride.

An unreflective use of the term “tribe” to represent social groups in Africa overlooks its invention as a negative identity marker during Western European imperialism and colonialism in Africa. European colonizers entrenched Western epistemological, economic, political, cultural, and philosophical control over African nations (Eze, 1997; Prasad, 2003). As the epigraph above underscores, colonizers had the power to conquer, name, describe, and categorize not only the continent’s geographical boundaries but also the identity of its inhabitants.

Problematizing the use of “tribe” is important because two recent developments have sparked interest in research on MOS in Africa (Bruton et al., 2022; Jackson et al., 2008; Masolo, 2003; Wood et al., 2019). First, there are increasing calls for decolonizing MOS from scholars critical of its Western domination (Alcadipani et al., 2012; Allen and Girei, 2024; Banerjee, 2022; Boussebaa, 2023; Cooke, 2004; Jack et al., 2011; Jammulamadaka et al., 2021; Muzanenhamo and Chowdhury, 2023; Prasad, 2003; Yousfi, 2021). Second, mainstream MOS has extended invitations to bring Africa into the discipline because of the continent’s potential as a new frontier for scholars. For example, Mol et al. (2017: 3) write about the “opportunity presented by Africa as an un(der)explored context.” Editors of the Academy of Management Journal, in an article entitled, Bringing Africa In: Promising Directions for Management Research, refer to Africa as “fertile territory for management scholarship” (George et al., 2016: 377).

These invitations and others suggest an extractive motive for researching Africa and can unwittingly lead to epistemic neocolonialism (Chowdhury, 2023). We worry about the prospects for intellectual imperialism in the form of a scramble for MOS knowledge from Africa, akin to the scramble for Africa during the rapid colonization of the African continent by European powers in the last two decades of the 19th century. Historians describe the scramble as the most rapid period of imperial expansion in history and as the pinnacle of European power and self-confidence (Brooke-Smith, 1987; Michalopoulos and Papaioannou, 2016). Increasing research from Africa based on inaccurate, stereotypical, and racist representations runs the risk of perpetuating its marginalization in MOS while valorizing the superiority of extant knowledge from the West (Cruz, 2025; Prasad, 2005).

In this paper, first, we trace the use of “tribe” from its origins as a Roman Empire administrative tool, its use by anthropologists to distinguish primitive, pre-industrial societies from industrial societies, and how it was repurposed during the colonial era to enable the economic exploitation of Africa and subjugation of its people. Next, we draw from postcolonial theory to illuminate how European colonizers constructed and managed “tribes” during the colonial era in Africa. We also foreground exemplars of the use of “tribe” in MOS research to demonstrate how its (un) conscious use reproduces dominant, negative representations of Africa in MOS knowledge.

Our goal is to unsettle its normative use in contemporary MOS research focused on Africa by revealing its ontological and epistemic limitations (Koopman, 2013). Thinking critically about its usage is crucial because it can inadvertently become a totalizing explanation for any evidence of dysfunctional social relations and organizations in Africa.

Ultimately, we call for critical reflection about the continued use of “tribe” in MOS research. We do not suggest that the social group memberships individuals in Africa identify lack attitudinal, emotional, and behavioral significance for them. Social identity theory has long established that an individual’s identity (i.e. Who am I?) is influenced by social group membership (Tajfel, 1972). The term “ethnic group” has become the default term for a community or population that shares a common culture, language, religion, or ancestry. Kamoche (2002) and Nyambegera (2002) argue that ethnic identity, in combination with kinship ties, is a strong cultural force in Africa. We urge MOS researchers to use the term “ethnic group” rather than “tribe” in research about managing and organizing in Africa.

Origins of “Tribe(s)”

The etymology of the word “tribe” reveals its complex and contested meaning over time. The origin of the term “tribe” is attributed to the ancient Latin word tribūs (Sneath, 2016). The Roman Empire utilized it to divide its populace into administrative units, including voting assemblies, military units, and citizen enrollment (Cornell, 1995: 117; Momigliano and Cornell, 2016). Reference to “tribes” can also be found in biblical texts (e.g. the 13 tribes of Israel) during the 13th century (Sneath, 2016). There was little evidence of negative connotations at the time, as it was essentially an administrative or organizational tool (Sneath, 2016).

However, it took on a different meaning when the field of social and cultural anthropology began to use “tribe” to distinguish primitive, pre-industrial societies from industrial societies (Sneath, 2016). This reflected an emerging view of human development during the 18th-century Enlightenment. Morgan (1964), the most influential anthropologist at the time, defined three stages of human evolution: savagery, barbarism, and civilization. The natural course of human development was theorized as a progression to higher levels of social, economic, and political organization indicative of the level of civilization of different societies. “Tribal” societies represented a lower form of life “left behind by the march of progress” (Yapp, 1983: 154). Reports by European explorers of their encounters with indigenous peoples in Africa, Asia, and the Americas reinforced the idea that there were different stages of human development. They also described indigenous people as being at a lower stage of development than Europeans (Jordan, 2022; Yapp, 1983). By the mid-19th century, “tribe” had become an accepted theoretical concept in sociology and anthropology for the study of non-European populations in the rest of the world.

Anthropologists began questioning the term “tribe” and eventually abandoned it in the latter half of the 20th century (Sneath, 2016). Scholars in the field offered different reasons for ending its use as an analytical concept. Some scholars questioned its validity, arguing that the term had been vaguely defined and inaccurately applied to societies that were not “tribal.” Fried (1966: 531), in a well-cited critique of the multifarious definitions of tribe, concluded “tribe lacked sociological rigor from its inception.” Other anthropologists rejected the essentialization embedded in the concepts of “tribe” and “tribalism.” For example, Southall (1996: 1331) argued that it homogenized people from non-Western, non-Anglo parts of the world as primitive, uncivilized, backward, and stagnant, implying that they had not progressed toward modernity. Research conducted by anthropologists also challenged the idea that contemporary conflicts between different “tribes” were due to a precolonial history of “tribalism” (Edel, 1965). In his much-cited work on inter-tribal relations in the Copperbelt region of Zambia, Epstein (1958: 239) observed, “the cleavages within political organizations along tribal lines cannot be explained simply as vestiges from a ‘tribal’ past which have survived into the present. On the contrary, they reflect processes at work within the urban social system.”

Perhaps the most strident criticism came from postcolonial scholars and researchers who focused on African history. Mafeje (1971), an African anthropologist and postcolonial scholar, argued that colonial authorities helped create “tribes” by reconstructing African societies through the imposition of policies and practices aimed at controlling the “native” population. This reconstruction, as noted by African history scholar Terence Ranger, emanated from European meanings of civilization and empire (Ranger, 1983). Ranger (1983: 250) argued, “The most far-reaching inventions of tradition in colonial Africa took place when the Europeans believed themselves to be respecting age-old African customs. What were called customary law, customary land-rights, customary political structure, and so on, were in fact invented by colonial codification.”

In what is considered the most comprehensive history of Tanganyika (today Tanzania), Iliffe (1979: 323–4) describes the creation of “tribes” by the Germans: “Refining the racial thinking common in German times, administrators believed that every African belonged to a ‘tribe’, just as every European belonged to a nation.” Representing African societies as “tribes” and “tribal” also casts them as inferior, aligned with the justification of colonialism as a “civilizing mission.” In the next section of this paper, we discuss the simplification and codification of “tribes” during colonialism, which is central to our argument that MOS scholars should also abandon this concept in their studies of Africa.

Colonialism and “Tribe” in Africa

The particular forms and structures of colonialism practiced in Africa are relevant to understanding “tribe” and “tribalism” (Césaire, 1972; Frantz, 1963; Mudimbe, 1988). Although the Dutch, British, French, and Portuguese had already laid claim to coastal areas (i.e. through the establishment of trading posts managed by trading companies from the late 15th century). King Leopold II of Belgium had declared the Congo his private colony, and the most active period of African colonization began with the infamous Scramble for Africa (Michalopoulos and Papaioannou, 2016; Mudimbe, 1988). At the Berlin Conference held in 1885, European nations partitioned Africa into protectorates and colonies to advance their power and economic interests. Ethnic groups were arbitrarily split into “tribes” across these new colonial “states.”

Colonizers created and cultivated “tribal” divisions to extract wealth from African colonies. However, they did not simply state the existence of “tribes.” They also arbitrarily separated or brought together historical groupings of people. Thus, “tribe” was a means of distinguishing the colonizer from the colonized, the superior from the inferior, and white people from non-whites. It settled into a European lexicon as a catchall term for describing their interactions with the non-white world in their colonies (Lammy, 2020). Racialization processes were essential to justify colonialism as a “civilizing” mission. Frantz (1963), in his writings, demonstrated how colonizers imposed representation and discourse regimes to make Africans see and experience themselves as the inferior “Other.”

However, “tribe” was more than a stereotypical representation of Africans as inferior subjects. European colonizers also bestowed “tribes” with a particular legal status to entrench the distinction between Africa as a primitive, underdeveloped society and Europe as a modern, developed society. Postcolonial scholar Mamdani (2012) offers an insightful historical account of how “tribe” acquired a particular legal status, drawing on the work of Henry Maine, a prominent British jurist and historian. Maine’s writings on the agency of the colonized were embraced by colonial administrators in sub-Saharan Africa and translated into governance policies. According to Mamdani (2012: 2), this resulted in “The reinvention of ‘the native,’ whose agency and legal personality would henceforth be regarded as tribal by colonial scholarship and determined as such by a colonial power.” Legalizing the identities of colonized Africans as “tribal” was central to the management and reproduction of difference, further justifying European domination.

In codifying traditions, colonizers made “tribes” the central unit of the social organization of African societies and leveraged them to advance their goals (Crehan, 1997). Colonial administration heightened the salience of the ethnic differences they encountered through practices that included ethnic favoritism. The codification of so-called “tribal traditions” hardened existing identities amongst Africans, mitigating their potential flexibility and fluidity over time (Apter, 1999). Traditional leaders, who had previously been autonomous and accountable to those they led, became agents of colonial governments, wielding political and judicial power to sustain “African customs” (Ali et al., 2020; Palagashvili, 2018).

Two forms of law governed the colonies: one from the West, culture-free and reserved for the colonizers (i.e. civil law), and customary law (i.e. based on customs and traditions) for Africans. The system for native administration transformed cultural identity into political identity and ethnicity into “tribe” (Mamdani, 2012). For example, the British employed the indirect rule system extensively in colonial Nigeria, allowing them to control vast territories while minimizing direct administrative costs and efforts. The appointment of traditional leaders, often referred to as “warrant chiefs,” meant that individuals without pre-existing authority were empowered under colonial governance. Colonizers exploited pre-existing social hierarchies by bestowing more resources and power on some groups than others.

Colonial governance not only defined ethnic identities but also created legacies of mistrust and division among ethnic groups that continue to impact social relations in the post-independence era. The arbitrary formation of ethnic groups during colonialism contributed to ongoing political conflicts and challenges related to national identity, which many African nations continue to experience today (Ahluwalia, 2001; Memmi, 1991; Richard, 2009). There is empirical evidence of the enduring effects of the European arbitrary partition of Africa. In a comprehensive empirical study of the long-term effects of the scramble for Michalopoulos and Papaioannou (2015: 1803) found that partitioned ethnic groups (those split during the scramble) are often entangled in a vicious circle of government-led discrimination and ethnic wars. Their analysis shows that conflict intensity was higher in areas where partitioned ethnicities reside than in the homelands of ethnicities that were not separated by colonial national borders (Michalopoulos and Papaioannou, 2016: 1804).

The retention of “tribe”(s) in postcolonial Africa contrasts with its demise in representations of European peoples’ identities. While the term “tribe” was historically used to describe the early inhabitants of Europe, it ceased to be a significant identity as nation-states emerged and expanded significantly in Europe during the Roman Empire’s expansion (Moore, 2011: 1). However, “tribe” continued to be used in Africa and other parts of the “Global South” to distinguish the “civilized” in Europe from the “uncivilized” in other nations (Mahmood, 2020). “Tribe” continues to have an indelible effect on others’ perceptions of Africa (Mahmood, 2020). External perceptions of Africa from Western eyes evoke negative connotations regarding its people and their way of life (Ayittey, 1991; Hammond-Tooke, 1937, 1974; Hungerford et al., 2023).

“Tribe” and “Tribalism” in MOS

Our review of MOS research identified three significant ways scholars employ the term “tribe” (and its variations). First, the term “tribe” is used as a primary representation of ethnic groups in Africa (e.g. Emam et al., 2019; Zoogah, 2016a, 2016b). Some of the earliest examples can be found in research that does not focus on Africa. For example, in an article published in 1988 on organizational culture, the authors refer to African “tribes” to illustrate the effects of negative organizational cultures. The authors state, “Anthropology provides many examples of inappropriate social cultures. The violent culture of the Masai tribe of Southern Africa enabled them to thrive for centuries, but they have adapted poorly compared to their gentler neighbors in Kenya” (Camerer and Vepsalainen, 1988: 121). It is not the only article that used African “tribes” to understand organizational culture. Philip and McKeown (2004: 625) argued, “against this background, the purpose of this paper is to argue that the cultural theory which was developed originally by the famous British anthropologist Mary Douglas to study the social anthropology of religion in primitive African tribes, can shed significant light on the role of culture in transforming businesses in a world characterized by increased competition, globalization of markets and competitors and the enabling technologies which have permitted these dynamics to occur.”

However, essentialization also occurs in research focused on Africa. Researchers position “tribe” as a natural feature of the continent. For example, “tribal solidarity makes efficient ties easier to develop . . . tribal, religious, and linguistic diversity make the development of efficient ties more difficult compared to Westernized contexts” (Lux et al., 2016: 73).

Other research emphasizes the centrality of “tribe” to people’s identity in Africa (Beugré, 2020; Galdino et al., 2018; Peprah et al., 2022; Zoogah, 2016a, 2022). For example, one study discusses the application of organizational neuroscience to understand tribal identity in Africa (Beugré, 2020). Zoogah (2016a: 183) defined “tribal” identity as “the extent to which individuals feel a sense of connection with their tribe.” Essentialization is also evident in the description of “tribalism.” Typically, it is portrayed as negative: “tribalism must be replaced by merit if African businesses are to become competitive with the rest of the world” (Lutz, 2009: 8).

Second, “tribe” is used in MOS research to predict individual and organizational outcomes. We found studies that examine the effects of “tribes” on firm performance, employee affective outcomes, and organizational relationships. These studies evaluated whether the concept of “tribe” has a positive or negative effect on outcome variables (e.g. Okyere-Kwakye et al., 2019; Zoogah, 2016a, 2016b). To counter research by economists demonstrating that ethnic diversity contributes to Africa’s economic deprivation, Zoogah (2016a) examined how “tribal” diversity relates to collective productivity at the national level. His model evaluated the “effect” of tribal diversity on collective productivity mediated by social inclusion and human resource development, moderated by tribal identity. “Tribal” diversity was measured using Blau’s Index and data from the CIA World Factbook, which contains information on ethnic groups in African countries. The “tribal” identity was measured by how individuals identify with their ethnic group rather than with their nation (e.g. Ashanti rather than Ghanaian).

Although the data were drawn from a database of African ethnic groups, “tribe” was used as the predictor. In fact, Zoogah (2022: 125), drawing from the work of Kotkin (1992), argues that “tribe and ethnicity” are identical cousins. In his efforts to establish “tribe” as central to the identity of African peoples, Zoogah (2022) relies on Kotkin’s (1992) argument that “tribes” have achieved economic success because of strong ethnic solidarity. Interestingly, Kotkin’s (1992) primary examples of these “tribes” are the British, Jews, Chinese, Indians, and Japanese people. Zoogah (2022) gives little relevance to how colonizers codified tribes to advance the exploitation of the continent and to justify colonialism as a civilizing mission of primitive peoples.

Okyere-Kwakye et al. (2019) examined the efficacy of intergroup contact theory in reducing conflict among people from a multi-tribal context to facilitate knowledge sharing. “Tribe” was measured by asking respondents to indicate the “tribe” to which they belonged. Other studies have attempted to link “tribal” identity to entrepreneurial intentions (e.g. Alexander and Honig, 2016: 1). In a study of social networks for social enterprises in Kenya, the authors identify tribal divisions as a significant challenge (Busch and Barkema, 2022).

The last use of “tribe” positioned it as a necessary and valuable construct for conducting indigenous research. Some authors suggest that African research should reflect its “true” social structure (e.g. “tribe”) and context to be authentically indigenous. In these studies, “Indigenous” is conflated with assumed, knowable precolonial historical traditions and customs. Kragh’s (2016: 63) research illustrates the underlying logic of this assumption. Although “tribe” is not mentioned, the author argues that “African countries’ organizational behavior and business relations reflect pre-industrial social norms typical of kinship-based, rural communities, such as in-group/out-group differentiation, reliance on kinship, and gift exchanges to create and strengthen social bonds.”

Drawing from two texts, he concludes that the reliance on kinship and the cultural principles of cooperation and gift exchange make African organizations and business relations qualitatively different from industrial market capitalism and organizations based on rationality, as described by Adam Smith. Kragh (2016) concludes that imposing Western-style management practices based on rationality and utilitarian principles may not be effective for African organizations. While it is important to avoid the imposition of Western management concepts upon the continent, arguments of this nature can inadvertently reinforce colonial representations of Africa as stagnant and unchanging.

Other researchers use the term “tribe” to illustrate the potential of indigenous knowledge from Africa to enhance management and leadership. For example, Zoogah (2020) draws on the practices of ancient Egyptian tribes to “propose one type of Indigenous leadership: companionate leadership” (Zoogah, 2020: 214). Although well-intended, these efforts may result in romanticizing anything deemed ’Indigenous’ (Banerjee, 2022).

The dangers of “Tribe”

The colonial origins of “tribe” call for caution in retaining it to represent social groups in Africa in the research we conduct. Our analysis of MOS research revealed several dangers associated with the use of “tribe.” First, “tribe” was often assumed to be an essential feature of African countries, and that it is possible to identify and measure distinct differences among “tribes” in Africa, even though colonizers arbitrarily determined their composition.

Historical evidence suggests precolonial social group boundaries were flexible and porous (Ndlovu, 2024: 40). For example, the first author of this paper traces his ancestry to the Nguni and Ndebele people. The Ndebele people settled in southern Zimbabwe under King Mzilikazi, a member of the Khumalo clan who was once a general of King Shaka, leader of the Zulu nation in South Africa from 1816 to 1828 (Ndlovu, 2022; Wright, 2006). The new kingdom under King Mzilikazi (1823–1868) was composed of people from various clans and ethnic groups, including the Sotho, Xhosa, Tswana, and Pedi, who reflected this diversity through their praise songs and lineage. As noted by Ranger (1983: 248), “. . . studies of 19th-century precolonial Africa emphasize that far from being a single ‘tribal’ identity, most Africans moved in and out of multiple identities, defining themselves at one moment as subject to this chief, at another moment as a part of this clan . . ..”

Further, several ethnographic studies of “tribal” groups in Africa have revealed the arbitrary demarcation and naming of “tribes.” Studies by anthropologists, Jorgensen (1885), Fortes (1945), Goody (1957), Labouret (1931) and Tait (1961) conducted in parts of Ghana, the Ivory Coast (now Côte d’Ivoire), Madagascar, and the Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso), documented several examples of arbitrary distinctions between “tribes” and misrepresentations of their names and assigned definitive boundaries between one another. For example, Jorgensen (1885) noted that names of “tribes” often resulted from foreign corruption of native words and that “it is virtually impossible to know the origins of the names attributed to tribes.” In reviewing these studies, Southall (1970: 39) concluded that “the dubious validity of these names adopted by Europeans and subsequently enshrined in the literature and fed back to the people during the period of dominant colonial influence, to the point at which the people themselves were left with no alternative but to accept them.” In other words, it may be impossible ever to claim distinct boundaries between “tribes” or know what different African groups called themselves in pre-colonial Africa.

Second, using “tribe” in our research reifies the representation of people in Africa as primitive, primordial people locked into an essentialist identity, while overlooking the continent’s urbanization, modernization, and evolving nature (Eze, 2014; Mahmood, 2020; Pierre, 2020). It also echoes racist assumptions about Africa and Africans as uncivilized and incapable of industriousness that prevailed during the industrialization era (Bender, 2009). As noted by Bender (2009: 44), during the early 20th century, “A complex racial science cast the inhabitants of tropical colonies as indolent and incapable of progress and their rulers (colonizers) from temperate climates as vigorous, efficient, innovative, and progressive.”

Finally, it is difficult to disassociate the use of “tribe” with another harmful representation of Africa. Invitations to bring Africa into MOS often represent it as an “institutional void” plagued by weak structures and chaotic, inadequate leadership. We fear that the co-naturalization of “institutional void” and “tribe” may create a negative discursive scaffolding that could be difficult to dismantle (Pierre, 2020).

Constructing Africa as an institutional void can become a totalizing assumption that disregards the heterogeneity of countries. Describing the context of Africa as an “institutional void” (Khanna and Krishna, 2013; Wang et al., 2022) can imply that institutions on the continent are inherently inferior compared to those in the West. Bothello et al. (2019) argue that characterizing Africa as an institutional void obscures the presence of institutions that contribute to its development. The stigma of the continent as “underdeveloped” or “Third World” is intricately linked to thoughts of primitive or traditional societies locked in “tribal” conflicts (Reader, 1998; Rodney, 1979). Researchers give little attention to the effects of the scramble for Africa on contemporary management and organizational challenges experienced by different nations (Adichie, 2007; Alesina et al., 2000; Juma, 2012; Lentz, 1995; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2008; Richard, 2009). Nor do they account for the effect of colonialism on disrupting Africa’s development. Anti-colonial scholar Rodney (1972) comprehensively analyzes how colonialism and chattel slavery disrupted Africa’s development, from its effects on economies, markets, and infrastructure to people’s subjectivities and human development.

Representing Africa differently

There are two significant ways MOS scholars can begin to represent Africa differently in our research. First, anthropologists abandoned the concept of “tribe” in the mid-20th century and replaced it with the concept of ethnic group (Asad, 1973; Fluehr-Lobban et al., 1976; Fried, 1975). We urge MOS scholars to utilize ethnic groups to represent the diversity that exists within African countries, thereby overcoming the negative connotations associated with the term “tribes.” Ethnic diversity and differences among people exist in all parts of the world, including Africa.

While ethnicity has been defined in several ways, common aspects across the many definitions conceptualize it as socially constructed, not biological; context-specific; multi-level; and as a means to differentiate among people in a diverse population, typically based on differences in culture, language, religion, and ancestry (Maleševic, 2004; Markus, 2008). Markus (2008: 654) offers a comprehensive definition that captures these aspects, “Ethnicity is a dynamic set of historically derived and institutionalized ideas and practices that (1) allows people to identify or to be identified with groupings of people based on presumed (and usually claimed) commonalities including language, history, nation or region of origin, customs, ways of being, religion, names, physical appearance, and/or genealogy or ancestry; (2) can be a source of meaning, action, and identity; and (3) confers a sense of belonging, pride, and motivation.”

However, when using ethnic groups, we must tread carefully, avoiding predetermined ethnic categories that assume research participants must fit within one. The limited research on ethnicity and ethnic identity in African countries highlights the challenge of categorizing people into fixed ethnic groups. Additionally, some research suggests that ethnic identity may not be fixed or immutable. Instead, it may be fluid, malleable, and context-bound. For example, Thomas and Bendixen (2000) in a study of 586 managers using Hofstede’s measures of national culture found similarities in scores on three of the dimensions among Black ethnic groups in South Africa (i.e. Xhosa, Zulu, and Sotho). Furthermore, the salience of ethnic identity may vary between Africans who live in rural versus urban areas (Zoogah et al., 2015). Eze (2014) coined the term Afropolitan to capture the complex blend of African heritage and contemporary influences (e.g. globalization) on the identity of African people.

The complex ethnic diversity within the continent suggests a relational perspective that incorporates macro-national, meso-organizational, and micro-individual levels of analysis may provide a more nuanced understanding of African ethnic groups in organizations (Syed and Özbilgin, 2009). The macro-national context can have a meaningful impact on social relations among different ethnic groups in the workplace. This level draws attention to a country’s colonial history, examining the precolonial and colonial influences on the formation of ethnic groups and interethnic social relations as well as post-independence factors.

For example, the extent to which government leaders stress ethnic identity versus national identity can influence the saliency individuals attach to it (Chaka and Adanlawo, 2023). Some research on ethnic identity in Africa suggests there may not be an innate bias toward other ethnic groups. Instead, it suggests the level of bias depends on the social context (i.e. social pressures or social sanctions) that may influence individuals to behave differently toward other ethnic groups (Habyarimana et al., 2007, 2009).

Other research conducted on ethnic diversity in national and cross-national conflicts points to the important role of government policy (e.g. equality and workplace rights) in efforts to build a national identity and attain equality and inclusion in the African workplace (Ani et al., 2018; Apitsa, 2020). Social identity theory stresses that social identity divisions will be stronger in societies characterized by historical, political, and economic divisions. The strength of the state may also be an important macro-level factor. Limited state capacity in many African countries may leave room for greater salience of ethnic identity. For example, ethnic group leaders may often act as intermediaries between the national government and the local community (Michalopoulos and Papaioannou, 2015). In such cases, people may more strongly identify with their ethnic group than with the nation. Rather than homogenizing Africa, an understanding of each country’s macro-national context ensures explicit recognition of its complex heterogeneity.

At the meso-organizational level, the focus is on the relationship between organizational processes, structures, and practices and the ethnic identity of individuals and groups. For example, how does the organizational context produce, reproduce, or mitigate ethnic group favoritism (e.g. nepotism)? What efforts are made to foster organizational identification rather than ethnic group identity?

At the micro-individual level of analysis, the focus is on individual goals, identity, and agency (Syed and Özbilgin, 2009). This level requires an intersectional approach that recognizes that Africans have multiple social identities, as do others around the world, and should not be reduced to a single identity. By taking a relational approach to understanding ethnic groups in Africa, we can avoid the misrepresentations identified earlier.

The second way we can represent Africa differently in our research is to be generally attentive to the colonial legacies of the countries under study, as they may be important to contemporary phenomena. For example, in a study of informal business in East Africa, the authors point to how the colonial practice of granting favors to minority “tribes” in exchange for their support in governance created group inequalities that persist today (Khavul et al., 2009). Additionally, researchers should also consider the effects of imposed Western-driven solutions to developing the newly independent African nations at the end of formal colonialism on the state of institutions today (Gammelgaard et al., 2020; Pierre, 2020). Scholars have shown how the imposition of Eurocentric macroeconomic fundamentals neglected countries’ cultural and socio-economic predicaments, often doing more harm than good (Mamadou, 1996; Mkandawire, 2007; Parashar and Schulz, 2021). However, the failures of ill-fitting imposed solutions are often attributed to “African institutional weaknesses” (Pierre, 2020: 90) and corrupt leadership (Nkomo, 2011). The work of Cooke (2003, 2004) is instructive for understanding the continuities of colonial administration and development management for the “Third World” as well as neocolonial analyses of multinational corporations (e.g. Boussebaa and Morgan, 2014; Storgaard et al., 2020).

Conclusion

As we have shown in this paper, the anthropological concept of “tribe” was used to advance the West’s imperialistic aims and entrench European racial superiority in Africa. Instead of reproducing the misrepresentation of ethnic groups in Africa, MOS scholars should seek more nuanced, non-hegemonic ways to understand the continent’s cultural and demographic complexity (Chowdhury, 2023). We believe understanding the practice and effects of colonialism in Africa is important to avoiding the meta-ignorance often associated with studying marginalized regions of the world as well as their institutions (Chowdhury, 2023). At the same time, research should consider contemporary influences on African people’s cultural identities (Eze, 2014). The key question for all of us is: How can we study MOS in Africa without reproducing colonial and neocolonial representations of the continent and its people (Wainaina, 2005)? This remains the epistemological challenge for scholars who wish to write Africa into MOS.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Nceku Nyathi

Notes

Author biographies

Nceku Nyathi, PhD, is a scholar in management and organization theory who is committed to amplifying the voices of marginalized groups within organizations. His research explores through critical lens organizational perspectives, identity, Indigenous knowledge systems, management history and Africa’s role in geopolitics and global business. He’s a founding Membership Executive of the Africa Academy of Management.

Stella M Nkomo is an emeritus professor in the Department of Human Resource Management at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Her research on race and gender in organizations, leadership, change management, and management in Africa has been published in top management journals and edited volumes. She is the founding President of the Africa Academy of Management.

References

Adichie

Chimamanda N.

(2007) Half of a Yellow Sun. London: Harper Perennial.

Ahluwalia

Pal

(2001) Politics and Post-Colonial Theory: African Inflections. London and New York, NY: Routledge.

Alcadipani

Rafael

Khan

Farzad Rafi

Gantman

Ernesto

Nkomo

Stella

(2012) ‘Southern Voices in Management and Organization Knowledge’, Organization 19(2): 131–43.

Alesina

Alberto

Spolaore

Enrico

Wacziarg

Romain

(2000) ‘Economic Integration And Political Disintegration’, American Economic Review 90(5): 1276–96.

Alexander

Ian K.

Honig

Benson

(2016) ‘Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Cultural Perspective’, Africa Journal of Management 2(3): 235–57.

Ali

Merima

Fjeldstad

Odd-helge

Shifa

Abdulaziz B

. (2020) ‘European Colonization and the Corruption of Local Elites: The Case of Chiefs in Africa’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 179: 80–100.

Allen

Stephen

Girei

Emanuela

(2024) ‘Developing Decolonial Reflexivity: Decolonizing Management Education by Confronting White Skin, White Identities, and Whiteness’, Academy of Management Learning and Education 23(2): 246–64.

Ani

Kelechi

Eseni

Emmanuel

Ojakorotu

Victor

(2018) ‘Conflict and Nation Building Challenges in Africa : Transforming the Peace-Building Role of International Organisations’, African Renaissance 15(2): 33–51.

Apitsa

Suzanne M.

(2020) ‘The Dynamics of Ethnic Cultural Interactions in the African Workplace’, in Apitsa

Suzanne M.

Milliot

Eric

, (eds) Doing Business in Africa: From Economic Growth to Societal Development, pp. 7–32. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

10.

Apter

Andrew

(1999) ‘Africa, Empire, and Anthropology: A Philological Exploration of Anthropology’s Heart of Darkness’, Annual Review of Anthropology 28: 577–98.

11.

Asad

Talal

(1973) ‘Introduction’, in Asad

(ed.) Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter, pp. 9–20. London: Ithaca Press.

12.

Asad

Talal

(1973) (ed.) Anthropology & the Colonial Encounter. London: Ithaca Press.

13.

Ayittey

George B. N.

(1991) Indigenous African Institutions. Ardsley-on-Hudson, NY: Transnational Publishers.

14.

Banerjee

Subhabrata Bobby

(2022) ‘Decolonizing Management Theory: A Critical Perspective’, Journal of Management Studies 59(4): 1074–87.

15.

Bender

Daniel E.

(ed.) (2009) American Abyss: Savagery and Civilization in the Age of Industry, 1st ed. Ithaca, New York, NY: Cornell University Press.

16.

Béteille

André

(1986) ‘The Concept of Tribe With Special Reference to India’, European Journal of Sociology 27(2): 296–318.

17.

Beugré

Constant

(2020) ‘Management Research in Africa: Insights From Organizational Neuroscience’, Africa Journal of Management 6(4): 249–68.

18.

Bothello

Joel

Nason

Robert. S.

Schnyder

Gerhard

(2019) ‘Institutional Voids and Organization Studies: Towards an Epistemological Rupture’, Organization Studies 40(10): 1499–512.

19.

Boussebaa

Mehdi

(2023) ‘Decolonizing International Business’, Critical Perspectives on International Business 19(4): 550–65.

20.

Boussebaa

Mehdi

Morgan

Glenn

(2014) ‘Pushing the Frontiers of Critical International Business Studies: The Multinational as a Neo-imperial Space’, Critical Perspectives on International Business 10(1/2): 96–106.

21.

Brooke-Smith

Robin

(1987) The Scramble for Africa. Hoboken, New Jersey, NJ: Palgrave Macmillan.

22.

Bruton

Garry D.

Zahra

Shaker A.

Van de Ven

Andrew H.

Hitt

Michael A.

(2022) ‘Indigenous Theory Uses, Abuses, and Future’, Journal of Management Studies 59(4): 1057–73.

23.

Bryman

Alan

(1993) ‘Charismatic Leadership in Business Organizations: Some Neglected Issues’, Leadership Quarterly 4(3–4): 289–304.

24.

Busch

Christian

Barkema

Harry

(2022) ‘Align or Perish: Social Enterprise Network Orchestration in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Journal of Business Venturing 37(2): 106187.

25.

Camerer

Colin

Vepsalainen

Ari

(1988) ‘The Economic Efficiency of Corporate Culture’, Strategic Management Journal 9(S1): 115–26.

26.

Césaire

Aimé

(1972) Discourse on Colonialism (1955), trans. Pinkham

Joan

. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

27.

Chaka

Mpho

Adanlawo

Eyitago F.

(2023) ‘The Impact of Ethnicity on South Africa’s National Unity’, African Renaissance 20(2): 315–30.

28.

Chowdhury

Rashedur

(2023) ‘Misrepresentation of Marginalized Groups: A Critique of Epistemic Neocolonialism’, Journal of Business Ethics 186: 553–70.

29.

Cooke

Bill

(2003) ‘A New Continuity With Colonial Administration: Participation in Development Management’, Third World Quarterly 24(1): 47–61.

30.

Cooke

Bill

(2004) ‘The Managing of the (Third) World’, Organization 11(5): 603–29.

31.

Cornell

Tim

(1995) The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome From the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars. London & New York, NY: Routledge.

32.

Crehan

Kate

(1997) “Tribes’ and the People Who Read Books: Managing History in Colonial Zambia’, Journal of Southern African Studies 23(2): 203–18.

33.

Cruz

Joëlle M.

(2025) ‘No-Organization: Confronting the “It” of Antiblackness in Scholarship on Africa’, Organization 32(2): 297–305.

34.

Devine

Richard A.

Kiggundu

Moses N.

(2016) ‘Entrepreneurship in Africa: Identifying the Frontier of Impactful Research’, Africa Journal of Management 2(3): 349–80.

35.

Edel

May

(1965) ‘African Tribalism: Some Reflections on Uganda’, Political Science Quarterly 80(3): 357–72.

36.

Emam

Ali Salman

Jais

Juraifa B

Tabash

Mosab I.

(2019) ‘The Role of Tribalism as Mediator Between Employee Empowerment and Organizational Commitment in Yemeni Islamic Banking Sector’, Management and Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society 14(1): 130–49.

37.

Epstein

Arnold L.

(1958) Politics in an Urban African Community. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

38.

Eze

Chielozona

(2014) ‘Rethinking African Culture and Identity: The Afropolitan Model’, Journal of African Cultural Studies 26(2): 234–47.

39.

Eze

Emmanuel C.

(1997) (ed) Postcolonial African Philosophy: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwells.

40.

Fabian

Johannes

(1991) Language and Colonial Power: The Appropriation of Swahili in the Former Belgian Congo 1880-1938. London: University of California Press Ltd

41.

Fluehr-Lobban

Carolyn

Lobban

Richard

Linda

Zangari

(1976) ‘‘‘Tribe’’: A Socio-Political Analysis’, Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies 7(1): 143–65.

42.

Fortes

Meyer

(1945) The Dynamics of Clanship Among the Tallensi. London: Oxford University Press.

43.

Frantz

Fanon

(1963) The Wretched of the Earth. London: Penguin.

44.

Fried

Morton H.

(1975) ‘The Myth of Tribe’, Natural History 84(4): 12–20.

45.

Fried

Morton H.

(1966) ‘On the concepts of “tribe” and “tribal society”’, Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 28(4 Series II): 527–40.

46.

Galdino

Katia. M.

Kiggundu

Moses N.

Jones

Carla D.

Sangbum

(2018) ‘The Informal Economy in Pan-Africa: Review of the Literature, Themes, Questions, and Directions for Management Research’, Africa Journal of Management 4(3): 225–58.

47.

Gammelgaard

Johanna

Haakonsson

Stine

Just

Sine N

. (2020) ‘Corporate Scramble for Africa? Towards a Postcolonial Framework for Transglocal Development Governance’, Organization Studies 41(9): 1213–33.

48.

George

Gerard

Corbishley

Christopher

Khayesi

Jane N. O.

Haas

Martine R.

Tihanyi

Laszlo

(2016) ‘Bringing Africa in: Promising Directions for Management Research’, Academy of Management Journal 59(2): 377–93.

49.

Godelier

Maurice

(1973) ‘The Concept of Tribe: Crisis of a Concept or Crisis of the Empirical Foundations of Anthropology?’, Diogenes 21(81): 1–25.

50.

Goody

Jack

(1957) ‘Fields of Social Control Among the LoDagaba’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 87(1): 75.

51.

Habyarimana

James

Humphreys

Posner

Daniel N.

Weinstein

Jeremy M

. (2007) ‘Why Does Ethnic Diversity Undermine Public Goods Provision?’, American Political Science Review 101(4): 709–25.

52.

Habyarimana

James

Humphreys

Posner

Daniel N.

Weinstein

Jeremy M

. (2009) Coethnicity: Diversity and the Dilemmas of Collective Action. New York City, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

53.

Hammond-Tooke

William D.

(Ed) (1974) The Bantu – Speaking Peoples of Southern Africa (1937). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

54.

Hungerford

Hilary

Subulwa

Angela G.

Chakravarty

Debjani

(2023) ‘The Insta-Gaze: Investigating the Endurance of Stereotypes of Africa’, Social & Cultural Geography 24(10): 1883–902.

55.

Igwe

Paul Agu

Okolie

Ugochukwu Chinonso

Nwokoro

Chioma Vivienne

(2021) ‘Towards a Responsible Entrepreneurship Education and the Future of the Workforce’, International Journal of Management in Education 19(1): 100300.

56.

Iliffe

John

(1979) A Modern History of Tanganyika. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

57.

Jack

Gavin

Westwood

Robert

Srinivas

Nidhi

Sardar

Ziauddin

(2011) ‘Deepening, Broadening, and Re-asserting a Postcolonial Interrogative Space in Organization Studies’, Organization 18(3): 275–302.

58.

Jackson

Terence

(2013) ‘Reconstructing the Indigenous in African Management Research’, Management International Review 53(1): 13–38.

59.

Jackson

Terence

Kenneth

Amaeshi

Serap

Yavuz

(2008) ‘Untangling African Indigenous Management: Multiple Influences on the Success of SMEs in Kenya’, Journal of World Business 43(4): 400–16.

60.

Jammulamadaka

Nimruji

Faria

Alex

Jack

Gavin

Ruggunan

Shaun

(2021) ‘Decolonising Management and Organisational Knowledge (MOK): Praxistical Theorising for Potential Worlds’, Organization 28(5): 717–40.

61.

Jordan

Winthrop

(2022) ‘First impressions’, in Black

Solomos

(eds) Theories of Race and Racism: A Reader, pp. 24–38. Milton Park: Routledge.

62.

Jorgensen

Simon E.

(1885) ‘Notes on the Tribes of Madagascar’, Antananarivo Annual IX(51)

63.

Juma

Calestous

(2012) ‘Viewpoint: How Tribalism Stunts African Democracy’, Retrived May 20, 2024, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20465752

64.

Kamoche

Ken

(2000) ‘Developing Managers: The Functional, the Symbolic, the Sacred and the Profane’, Organization Studies 21(4): 747–74.

65.

Kamoche

Ken

(2002) ‘Introduction: Human Resource Management in Africa’, International Journal of Human Resource Management 13(7): 993–97.

66.

Khanna

Tarun

Krishna

Palepu

(2013) Winning in Emerging Markets: A Road Map for Strategy and Execution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

67.

Khavul

Susanna

Bruton

Garry D.

Wood

Eric

(2009) ‘Informal Family Business in Africa’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33(6): 1219–38.

68.

Koopman

Colin

(2013) Genealogy as Critique: Foucault and the Problems of Modernity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

69.

Kotkin

Joel

(ed.) (1992) Tribes: How Race, Religion, and Identity Determine Success in the New Global Economy, 1st ed. New York, New York: Random House.

70.

Kragh

Simon Ulrik

(2016) ‘Tribe and Village in African Organizations and Business’, Personnel Review 45(1): 51–66.

71.

Labouret

Henri

(1931) Les tribus du Rameau Lobi. Institut d’Ethnologie (Travaux et mémoires de l’institut d’ethnologie XV), Paris.

72.

Lammy

David

(2020) Tribes: How Our Need to Belong Can Make or Break Society. London: Constable.

73.

Lentz

Carola

(1995) ‘‘Tribalism’ and Ethnicity in Africa’, Cahiers des Sciences Humaines 31(2): 303–28.

74.

Liedong

Tahiru Azaaviele

(2022) ‘The Liability of Tribe in Corporate Political Activity: Ethical Implications for Political Contestability’, Journal of Business Ethics 181(3): 623–44.

75.

Lutz

David W.

(2009) ‘African Ubuntu Philosophy and Global Management’, Journal of Business Ethics 84(s3): 313–28.

76.

Lux

Sean

Lamont

Bruce. T.

Ellis

Kimberly M.

Ferris

Gerald R.

Muchira

John

(2016) ‘Developing and Utilizing Efficient Ties in Entrepreneurial Networks in Africa’, Africa Journal of Management 2(1): 73–92.

77.

Mafeje

Archie

(1971) ‘The Ideology of “Tribalism”’, The Journal of Modern African Studies 9(2): 253–61.

78.

Mahmood

Mamdani

(2020) Neither Settler Nor Native: The Making and Unmaking of Permanent Minorities. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

79.

Maleševic

Siniš

(2004) The Sociology of Ethnicity. London: Sage Publications.

80.

Mamadou

Dia

(1996) Africa’s Management in the 1990s and Beyond. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

81.

Mamdani

Mahmood

(2012) What is a tribe? London Review of Books 34(17): 13.

82.

Markus

Hazel Rose

(2008) ‘Pride, Prejudice, and Ambivalence: Toward a Unified Theory of Race and Ethnicity’, American Psychologist 63(8): 651–70.

83.

Masolo

D. A.

(2003) ‘Philosophy and Indigenous Knowledge: An African Perspective’, Africa Today 50(2): 21–38.

84.

Mbalyohere

Charles

Lawton

Thomas C.

(2022) ‘Engaging Informal Institutions Through Corporate Political Activity: Capabilities for Subnational Embeddedness in Emerging Economies’, International Business Review 31(2): 101927.

85.

Memmi

Albert

(ed.) (1991) The Colonizer and The Colonized, expand ed. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.

86.

Michalopoulos

Stelios

Papaioannou

Elias

(2015) ‘On the Ethnic Origins of African Development: Chiefs and Precolonial Political Centralization’, Academy of Management Perspectives 29(1): 32–71.

87.

Michalopoulos

Stelios

Elias

Papaioannou

(2016) ‘The Long-Run Effects of the Scramble for Africa’, American Economic Review 106(7): 1802–48.

88.

Mitchell

James C.

(1970) ‘Tribe and Social Change in South Central Africa: A Situational Approach’, Journal of Asian and African Studies 5(1–2): 83–101.

89.

Mishra

Paresh

Maiko

Saneta

(2017) ‘Combating Corruption With Care: Developing Ethical Leaders in Africa’, Africa Journal of Management 3(1): 128–43.

90.

Mkandawire

Thandike

(2007) “Good Governance’: The Itinerary of an Idea’, Development in Practice 17(4/5): 679–81.

91.

Mol

Michael J.

Stadler

Christian

Ariño

Africa

(2017) ‘Africa: The New Frontier for Global Strategy Scholars’, Global Strategy Journal 7(1): 3–9.

92.

Momigliano

Arnaldo

Cornell

Tim

(2016) Tribus. Oxford: Research Encyclopedia of Classics.

93.

Moore

Tom

(2011) ‘Detribalizing the Later Prehistoric Past: Concepts of Tribes in Iron Age and Roman Studies’, Journal of Social Archaeology 11(3): 334–60.

94.

Morgan

Lewis H.

(1964) [1877]. Ancient Society: Researches in the Lines of Human Progress From Savagery Through Barbarism to Civilisation. New York: Holt.

95.

Mudimbe

Valentin Y.

(1988) The Invention of Africa: Gnosis, Philosophy, and the Order of Knowledge. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

96.

Muzanenhamo

Penelope

Chowdhury

Rashedur

(2023) ‘Epistemic Injustice and Hegemonic Ordeal in Management and Organization Studies: Advancing Black Scholarship’, Human Relations 76(1): 3–26.

97.

Ndlovu-Gatsheni

Sabelo J.

(2008) ‘For the Nation to Live, the Tribe Must Die: The Politics of Ndebele Identity and Belonging in Zimbabwe’, Society, State, and Identity in African History 167–200.

98.

Ndlovu

Sambulo

(2022) ‘Juxtaposing Zulu and Zimbabwean Ndebele Lexico-Semantic Differences: An Etymological and Shibboleth Analysis’, African Identities 20(2): 172–85.

99.

Ndlovu

Sifiso

(2024) ‘The Politics of Knowledge Production and Decolonisation: An Appraisal of Mahmood Mamdani’s Contributions’, Think 99(2): 35–43.

100.

Nkomo

Stella M.

(2011) ‘A Postcolonial and Anti-Colonial Reading of ‘African’ Leadership and Management in Organization Studies: Tensions, Contradictions and Possibilities’, Organization 18(3): 365–86.

101.

Nyambegera

Stephen M.

(2002) ‘Ethnicity and Human Reosurce Managemebt Practice in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Relevance of the Managing Diversity Discourse. International Journal of Human Resource Management 13(7): 1077–90.

102.

Okyere-Kwakye

Eugene

Nor

Khalil. M.

Soehod

Khairiah

(2019) ‘Intergroup Contact Theory: Examining Knowledge Sharing Among Individuals From Different Tribes’, International Journal of Knowledge Management 15(2): 81–96.

103.

Palagashvili

Liya

(2018) ‘African Chiefs: Comparative Governance Under Colonial Rule’, Public Choice 174(3–4): 277–300.

104.

Parashar

Swati

Schulz

Michael

(2021) ‘Colonial Legacies, Postcolonial “Selfhood” and the (Un)doing of Africa’, Third World Quarterly 42(5): 867–81.

105.

Peprah

Augustine Awuah

Giachetti

Claudio

Larsen

Marcus M.

Rajwani

Tazeeb S.

(2022) ‘How Business Models Evolve in Weak Institutional Environments: The Case of Jumia, the Amazon.com of Africa’, Organization Science 33(1): 431–63.

106.

Philip

George

McKeown

Ian

(2004) ‘Business Transformation and Organizational Culture’, European Management Review 22(6): 624–36.

107.

Pierre

Jemima

(2020) ‘The Racial Vernaculars of Development: A View From West Africa’, American Anthropologist 122(1): 86–98.

108.

Prasad

Anshuman

(2003) Postcolonial Theory and Organizational Analysis: A Critical Engagement. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

109.

Prasad

Pushkala

(ed.) (2005) Crafting Qualitative Research: Working in the Postpositivist Traditions: Working in the Postpositivist Traditions, 1st ed, p. viii. Milton Park: Routledge.

110.

Ranger

Terence

(1983) ‘The Invention of Tradition in Colonial Africa’, in Hobsbawm

Ranger

(eds) The Invention of Tradition, pp. 211–62. Cambridge: University Press.

111.

Reader

John

(1998) Africa: A Biography of the Continent. London: Penguin.

112.

Richard

Dowden

(2009) Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles. London: Portobello.

113.

Rodney

Walter

(1972) ‘Problems of Third World Development’, Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies 3(2): 27–47.

114.

Rodney

Walter

(1979) How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Great Britain: Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications.

115.

Shanahan

Daniel

(1996) ‘From Language Learner To Multicultural Manager’, European Management Journal 14(3): 315–20.

116.

Sneath

David

(2016) ‘Tribe’, in Stein

Felix

(ed) The Open Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Facsimile of the first edition in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.29164/16tribe

117.

Southall

Aidan W.

(1970) ‘The Illusion of Tribe’, Journal of Asian and African Studies 5(1–2): 28–50.

118.

Southall

Aidan

(1996) ‘Tribes’, in Levinson

David

Ember

Melvin

(eds). Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology. V. 4, pp. 1329–36. Henry Holt & Company.

119.

Storgaard

Marianne

Tienari

Janne

Piekkari

Rebecca

Michailova

Snejina

(2020) ‘Holding on While Letting Go: Neocolonialism as Organizational Identity Work in a Multinational Corporation’, Organization Studies 41(11): 1469–89.

120.

Syed

Jawad

Özbilgin

Mustafa

(2009) ‘A Relational Framework for International Transfer of Diversity Management Practices’, International Journal of Human Resource Management 20(12): 2435–53.

121.

Tajfel

Henri

(1972) ‘Some Developments in European Social psychology’, European Journal of Social Psychology 2(3).

122.

Tait

David

( Goody

Jack

, ed.) (1961) The Konkomba of Northern Ghana. London: Oxford University Press (for International African Institute).

123.

Thomas

Adele

Bendixen

Mike

(2000) ‘The Management Implications of Ethnicity in South Africa’, Journal of International Business Studies 31(3): 507–19.

124.

Uhl-Bien

Mary

Marion

Russ

McKelvey

Bill

(2007) ‘Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting Leadership From the Industrial Age to the Knowledge Era’, Leadership Quarterly 18(4): 298–318.

125.

Wainaina

Binyavanga

(2005) ‘How to Write About Africa’, Granta 92(1): 4. https://granta.com/how-to-write-about-africa/

126.

Wang

Dan

Cui

Lin

Thin

Feng

Taiwen

(2022) ‘Political Capital and MNE Responses to Institutional Voids: The Case of Chinese State-Owned Enterprises in Africa’, Organization Studies 43(1): 105–26.

127.

Wood

Geoffrey

Darwish

Tamer K.

Alanezi

Abdullah N.

Singh

Satwinder

(2019) ‘Indigenization of Staffing in MNEs: The Case of Saudi Arabia’, Asia Pacific Journal of Management 37(3): 879–98.

128.

Wright

John

(2006) ‘Beyond the “Zulu Aftermath”: Migrations, Identities, Histories’ Journal of Natal and Zulu History 24(1): 1–36.

129.

Xaxa

Virginius

(2005) ‘Politics of Language, Religion and Identity: Tribes in India’, Economic and Political Weekly 1363–70.

130.

Yapp

Malcom

(1983) Tribes and States in the Khyber 1838–42. In the Conflict of Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan (Ed.) R. Tapper. London: Croom Helm.

131.

Yousfi

Hèla

(2021) ‘International Management: Should We Abandon the Myth of Cultural Hybridity? A Re-examination of the Contribution of Postcolonial and Decolonial Approaches’, Management 24(1): 80–9.

132.

Zoogah

Baniyelme D.

(2020) ‘Companionate Leadership: A Shemswian Perspective’, Africa Journal of Management 6(3): 214–47.

133.

Zoogah

Baniyelme D.

(2022) Ethnos Oblige: Theory and Evidence. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.

134.

Zoogah

David B.

(2016a) ‘Tribal Diversity, Human Resources Management Practices, and Firm Performance’, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration 33(3): 182–96.

135.

Zoogah

David, B.

(2016b) ‘Tribal Diversity and Collective Productivity: The Intervening Mechanisms of Social Inclusion, Human Resource Development and Tribal Identity’, in Klarsfeld

Alain

Eddy S.

Booysen

Lize A. E.

Castro Christiansen

Liza

Kuvaas

Bård

, (eds) Research Handbook of International and Comparative Perspectives on Diversity Management, pp. 303–32. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

136.

Zoogah

David B.

Peng

Mike W.

Woldu

Habte

(2015) ‘Institutions, Resources, and Organizational Effectiveness in Africa’, Academy of Management Perspectives 29(1): 7–31.