A critical cross-cultural perspective for developing nonprofit international management capacity

NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 19, no. 4, Summer 2009 © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 443Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/nml.231

A Critical Cross-Cultural Perspective for Developing

Nonprofit International Management Capacity

Terence JacksonIssues of the effectiveness of international nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs) are becoming critical among a claim thatcultural sensitivity to people’s needs and the appropriateness ofinterventions is a competitive advantage of the sector. Here, thecross-cultural management agenda is set out, particularly interms of the transferability or appropriateness of managementknowledge and development interventions. Research proposi-tions are presented that, if supported through future empiricalfindings, suggest cultural hybridization is a process that can bemanaged through greater stakeholder involvement, leading togreater appropriateness as well as effectiveness of internationalNGOs.

THE IDEA OF “MANAGING” nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) or nonprofit organizations is a recent considerationamong practitioners and academics. Reported opinions

among development practitioners seem to run from complete dis-dain of anything to do with managerialism to uncritical acceptanceof Western management principles (for example, Kaplan, 2002;Fowler, 2002). Lewis (2001) suggests that some nonprofit organi-zations in the development sector have revised their opinions aboutmanagement and have rushed into importing the latest manage-ment technique in an attempt at a quick fix. This appears to be thecase within the context of reported concerns about the developmenteffectiveness of international NGOs, among other performance fac-tors such as aid system architecture, working in hostile politicalenvironments, and power asymmetry (Mawdsley, Townsend, Porter,and Oakley, 2002; Groves and Hinton, 2004). According to Fowler(1995), pressures on development NGOs from donor organizationsin the “developed world” to adopt “modern” management tech-niques are considerable. For example, he notes that the increased

access to public funds of development NGOs has come with morestringent conditions from donor agencies, including a requirementfor greater accountability and organizational transformations(Fowler, 1995). Management is becoming a critical success factorin the international NGO sector.

Yet two related key issues in the management of developmentNGOs together have received only scant attention in the literature:management effectiveness and management appropriateness. Thefirst is often addressed in response to a narrowly conceived stake-holder base. Gibb and Adhikary (2000) propose that local NGOsoften have a weak resource base and therefore are more likely tolapse into chasing funder resources rather than reflecting local needs.As a result, they are prone to becoming supplier rather than cus-tomer led: they are more likely to be geared to meeting the needs ofthe supplier-side organizations rather than their ultimate local cus-tomers, becoming isolated from the local stakeholder base. YetCernea (1988) asserts that development NGOs claim that their com-parative advantage is in their local responsiveness, social focus, andcultural sensitivity to people’s needs and the appropriateness of inter-ventions. This contradiction appears not to be fully addressed in theliterature. In this respect, the cross-cultural management of interna-tional NGOs becomes a critical issue.

The recent appearance of references to cross-cultural manage-ment theorists, particularly to Geert Hofstede (1980a, 2003) in theacademic development literature in general (Dia, 1996) and thoseaddressing NGO management in particular (Lewis, 2001), has notserved to address many issues but rather to highlight the problemsof transferability of modern or Western (mainly American orBritish) management principles and practices to NGOs working indeveloping countries. This has occurred at a time when theory thatwas seminal in the 1980s is coming under intensive critique in the management literature (for example, Fang’s 2003 critique ofHofstede’s fifth dimension).

Despite the fact that the main business of development NGOsinvolves working across cultures, the growing literature on NGOmanagement rarely mentions culture (once in the case of Edwardsand Fowler, 2002), and where “cross-cultural” is discussed, it is seenas an additional factor rather than an integral part of management(such as in Lewis, 2001). Therefore, this article aims to:

• Develop from the current literature a cross-cultural framework thatis applicable to the issues of management effectiveness and appro-priateness within development NGOs

• Provide from the literature an analysis of the transferability ofmanagement capacity-building principles, particularly from devel-oped to developing world, using the criterion of appropriateness

• Suggest how this might inform NGO management through across-cultural approach

Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

444 JACKSON

Management isbecoming a

critical successfactor in theinternationalNGO sector.

• Propose a research agenda in the area of knowledge transferabil-ity, management capacity building, and assessment of impact ofmanagement action in international and local development NGOs

Management Systems and Cultural Hybridization

Locus of human value, a concept that was investigated empirically byJackson (2002b) across seven diverse cultures, can help in understa-nding cross-cultural interaction. Western management (American,British, French, Scandinavian, and so on) encompasses many approaches to managing people and organizations. Culturally theseapproaches appear to be linked by an instrumental view of people inorganizations as means to an end. This distinguishes them fromnon-Western views that often see people as ends in themselves—that is, a humanistic view. Jackson (2002a) asserts that viewinghuman beings as resources reflects the former view. The predomi-nance of the phrase human resource management throughout theworld, including within the NGO sector, reflects the (uncritical) in-fluence of this view.

In societies with cultural characteristics that stress the value ofpersons in themselves (and often as part of a wider social collective),adopting a perception of people as having value only in what theycan do for the organization (a resource), rather than valuing themfor who and what they are, appears to run contrary to many non-Western cultural values systems (for example, Japan: Allinson, 1993;Africa: Mbigi, 1997; India: Rao, 1996).

It may be possible to identify locus of human value (an embry-onic theme running through the international management litera-ture) as an important factor in understanding the managementsystems in developing countries, their appropriateness, and how theyoften combine in hybrid forms in individual organizations (for exam-ple, Priem, Love, and Shaffer, 2000; Jackson, 2002b). These differ-ent forms of management can be examined in terms of theirsignificance in understanding the cross-cultural context of manag-ing NGOs (Figure 1). For this purpose I predominantly focus onpublished research on sub-Saharan Africa.

A “Developing-Developed” Worldview: Postcolonial Management

The literature on management in developing countries of over adecade and a half ago predominantly appears to see “indigenous”management in a pejorative sense: hierarchical, centralized, authori-tarian (or at best paternalistic), rule bound, lacking flexibility, anddistrustful of employees (Kanungo and Jaeger, 1990; Blunt and Jones, 1992; Kiggundu, 1988). The suggested solution within

A CRITICAL CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE FOR DEVELOPING INGO MANAGEMENT 445


“Locus of humanvalue” . . . can

help inunderstandingcross-culturalinteraction.

446 JACKSON


Management Systems

Postcolonial

Western (Postinstrumental)

Humanistic (African renaissance)

Knowledge Transfer

NGO Capacity Building

Managing uncertainty and complexity. Managing decision making.

Using leadership and management styles. Motivating and rewarding managers.

Gaining employee commitment through workattitudes and organizational climate.

Managing cross-culturally.

Cultural Barriers to Transferability

Value of peopleChange process

Adaptive capacityOrganizational complexity

Learning

Historical legacy

Economic reform

Cultural renaissance

ManagementOutcomes

ImpactAssessment

Stakeholders

IdeologyPower

Hybridization

Figure 1. A Cross-Cultural Framework for NGO Management Capacity Building

the developing-developed world paradigm (the critique of whichhas spawned a huge literature in cultural and literature studiesaround “postcolonial theory,” from Said’s 1978 work on orientalismto more recent work such as Schech and Haggis, 2000, in develop-ment studies and Ahluwalia, 2001, in political and regional studies)is to move toward a Western approach. Evidence of this is presentedin the contributions in Budhwar and Debrah’s edited book (2001)on human resource management in developing countries. This ap-pears to represent a results and market focus, often consultative orparticipative, using a contingency approach that balances task andpeople foci. Multinational corporations, as well as agencies such asthe World Bank and International Monetary Fund, have been urgingthis movement over the past two decades (Barratt Brown, 1995;Mbaku, 1998; Wohlgemuth, Carlsson, and Kifle, 1998). This uptakeof Western principles applies to NGOs operating in developingcountries (Taylor, 2001). Yet this appears to represent a similar dy-namic to that which created postcolonial systems (Jackson, 2004).

Dia (1996), among others, posits the disconnect thesis: institu-tions were imposed on communities during the colonial era. This gaverise to systems of management and control that have continued to beseen as “African”: African chiefs were seen as dictatorial, authoritar-ian, and nonconsultative. Ayittey (1991) posits the opposite thesis:that African chiefs ruled by consensus. Yet these postcolonial systemsas a historical legacy (see Figure 1) appear to continue to alienateemployees in sub-Saharan Africa (Jackson, 2004; Abudu, 1986). Thereis evidence that postcolonial systems may be a feature in some NGOsin developing countries (an example is Edwards’s 1999 description ofSave the Children Fund–UK [SCF] in Bangladesh), but clearly this isan area where more research is needed. Hofstede’s theory of culturalvalue dimensions (1980a, 2003) suggests that developing regions aretypified by high power distance, where there is deference to authorityand an acceptance of differences between employee and boss, andpoor and rich (Kanungo and Jaeger, 1990; Blunt and Jones, 1992; Dia,1996). Yet this may be too simplistic, as evidence from traditional cul-tures in sub-Saharan Africa suggests (Ayittey, 1991; Jackson, 2004).

Although there is a growing literature on how NGOs should bemanaged (often within a Western framework), little research hasbeen undertaken on how NGOs are actually managed. There is evi-dence that postcolonial systems may be a feature in some SouthernNGOs (for example, Edwards’s 1999 description of SCF inBangladesh). Hence:

Proposition 1a: NGO management in developing regions will exhibitcharacteristics of postcolonial management.

Proposition 1b: Where this is the case, there will be a lack of fit be-tween the culture of the organization and the community that the organization serves.



Little research hasbeen undertakenon how NGOs areactually managed.

Proposition 1c: Staff will exhibit signs of demotivation and alien-ation.

Furthermore we might ask, are so-called Western (or, moreaccurately, Anglo-American) management systems any more appro-priate in developing regions and in NGOs operating in these regions?Some literature has addressed this question.

Toward “Modern” Management: PostinstrumentalismFrom the British human resource management (HRM) literature, itis possible to surmise that mature “modern” HRM systems inWestern countries do not reflect a hard instrumentalism such as in McGregor’s system X (1960) or Taylor’s scientific management(1911). Modern systems have adopted a contingency principle thatuses task- and people-focused approaches as appropriate (Beer andSpector, 1985; Tyson and Fell, 1986; Hendry and Pettigrew, 1990;Storey, 1992; Vaughan, 1994). However, evidence suggests thatwhere Western HRM methods have been adopted in emergingeconomies such as the former Soviet countries and in developingcountries, they have taken the harder forms (Jackson, 2002b). Par-ticipation and empowerment have become part of the discourse ofcontingency instrumental approaches (Taylor, 2001) rather thanpart of a humanist approach that values people as ends in them-selves (Mbigi, 1997).

With evidence suggesting that Western approaches are beingused uncritically in development NGOs (Lewis, 2001), driven byglobalization and the demand for economic and structural reform(Foreman, 1999, for example, talks about the “McDonaldization” ofNGOs), such postinstrumental management approaches may runcontrary to humanistic cultural perceptions within the local com-munity (Mbigi, 1997; Ayittey, 1991; Binet, 1970). Hence:

Proposition 2a: Development NGOs are increasingly adopting West-ern, instrumental approaches to managing.

Proposition 2b: Where this is the case, there will be a lack of fit be-tween the culture of the organization and the community that theorganization serves.

Proposition 2c: Staff will perceive this as disconnected from theirhome and community lives and culture.

Toward Humanistic Management Approaches: The African RenaissanceHumanistic approaches to management are being articulatedwithin Africa (Mbigi, 1997). This is particularly manifest in SouthAfrica through the concept of ubuntu, derived from a Xhosa saying:

448 JACKSON


“People are only people through other people” (Boon, 1996). Anumber of public and commercial sector organizations have imple-mented management development programs based on these prin-ciples, which seek to capture indigenous African values (Swartzand Davies, 1997).

Evidence from other sub-Saharan countries suggests that someorganizations are attempting to reintroduce “African” values (Jackson,2004). Whether this movement has touched the NGO communityis difficult to determine in the absence of empirical evidence. Yet thehumanistic view of people is in line with the stated mission of manydevelopment NGOs. Although this may contradict the considerableinfluence of Western (British and American, particularly in Ango-phone Africa) management approaches (represented as a bold lineto indicate a preeminence in Figure 1), there are inferences in theliterature that NGOs need to relate to their local clientele in waysthat reflect local values and practices (Gibb and Adhikary, 2000;Howes, 1997), but little on the way that internal managementreflects humanistic and communalistic values. Hence:

Proposition 3a: There is some movement toward a humanistic man-agement approach within development NGOs.

Proposition 3b: Where this is the case, this will provide a closer fitbetween the culture of the organization and the community withinwhich it works.

Proposition 3c: Staff will be more involved in the organization as theywill see a connection between work and their home and communitylife.

Rather than representing any one of these three ideal types sug-gested in the literature (postcolonial, postinstrumental or Western,and humanistic and indigenous), it is likely that NGOs, just likeorganizations in other sectors, must adapt and develop hybrid orga-nizations that are effective within the context in which they operate.How this is approached in the literature is considered next.

Cultural Crossvergence and Hybridization in NGO ManagementAlthough these three management systems are unlikely to befound in any pure form, they represent historical and current cul-tural influences on modern management practices in various hybridforms (Figure 1). The usefulness in describing these ideal types is inconceptualizing and analyzing the different influences on manage-ment in developing regions such as sub-Saharan Africa in a processof cultural crossvergence and hybridization of management systems(Ralston, Holt, Terpstra, and Kai-Cheng, 1997; Priem, Love, and Shaffer, 2000). This notion brings together the cultural convergence



Humanisticapproaches to

management arebeing articulated

within Africa.

thesis (for example, Hickson and Pugh, 1995), which suggests thatthrough globalization, cultures are coming together, and the diver-gence thesis (for example, Hofstede, 1980a, 2003), which suggeststhat cultures remain essentially different.

However, these theories tend to miss the importance of powerand ideology in the development of hybrid management forms. Forexample, the power of development agencies and donors, and theinfluence of Western management textbooks and courses, must havehad a substantial impact on the type of hybrid management formsoperating within development NGOs. Yet organizations operating inAfrica, Human (1996a) contends, cannot simply go back to sup-posed management methods that existed before colonial times. His-tory cannot be defied. (Postcolonial theory also questions thefeasibility of articulating “indigenous” knowledge; Spivak, 1988.)However, it may be possible to manage the process of hybridizationin terms of a capacity-building approach (Figure 1) by understandingand redefining the complexities of the operating environment:including different stakeholders’ inputs within the decision-makingprocess, developing appropriate leadership and management styles,attuning motivation and commitment to local conditions, and usingmulticulturalism and multiple influences of culture as an advantage,not a disadvantage, in developing NGO management capacity(Jackson, 2004). Hence:

Proposition 4: Management approaches that seek to manage cross-cultural influences and dynamics will be more successful, effective,and appropriate within their operating environment.

From the process of cultural crossvergence and culturalhybridization, one of the major issues arising is the transferability ofmanagement knowledge from one culture to another. This aspectcan be considered within the general framework presented in Figure 1 and is next discussed.

Transferring Knowledge Across Cultures: Capacity Building

The notion of capacity building within NGOs can be used to high-light issues concerning transferability of management knowledge.Capacity building might be construed as something that NorthernNGOs facilitate in their Southern partners (Lewis, 2001). Con-cepts of capacity building appear to grow out of the assumptionsof Northern (“developed”) contexts and cultures rather than theexigencies of Southern (“developing”) contexts and cultures, andthey have connotations of efficiency and effectiveness as well asaccountability for Southern NGOs (Lewis, 2001; Fowler, 2003).Hence it may well contain packaged approaches such as the HRM

450 JACKSON


competencies approach of the type that Kaplan (1999) arguesforcibly against. Kaplan’s approach is to listen to the needs ofSouthern NGOs. In considering capacity building as an example of knowledge transfer, it is necessary to focus on contextual, cul-tural issues involved in the transferability of management knowl-edge that have an impact on the process of hybridization (Figure 1).These issues involve cultural barriers to transferability.

As Lewis (2001) suggests, capacity building appears to have itsparallel in the commercial sector in organizational development(OD) with its predominantly process approach. Both capacity build-ing and OD approaches often adopt participatory orientations. Tolook in more detail at the aspects incorporated in organizationalcapacity building in the NGO sector, I draw predominantly from oneaccount of current thinking on capacity building (Khadar and Perez,2003). This view suggests it is possible to highlight some of thepotential cross-cultural difficulties in directly transferring practicesby focusing on the perceptions of the value of people and implica-tions for staff commitment in the work organization: perceptions ofthe change process and people’s adaptive capacity, perceptions of organizational complexity, and perceptions of learning.

Perception of the Value of PeopleAccording to Khadar and Perez (2003), individual knowledge,skills, and attitude development must be combined with team-building and organizational systems that channel human abilitiesand resources to achieve organizational goals. Yet this may reflectan instrumental approach to people as resources rather than asstakeholders of the organization and as part of a wider stakeholdercommunity. It may therefore be based on a view of the value ofpeople that is out of line with local cultures.

This may have implications for employee commitment to theorganization. One of the few extensive studies in South Africa,Cameroon, Nigeria, and Kenya (Jackson, 2004) suggests that com-munalistic and humanistic attitudes are important within organiza-tions across sectors; that employees expect both stability in their jobsand loyalty from their employers; that work is by no means centralin people’s lives, yet there is still a moderately high level of loyaltyshown to the organization (which may be dependent on loyalty shownto the employee); and that employees appear to be team players ratherthan individualists. Yet these aspects appear not to be fully realized.There seems to be a separation between home/community life and the world of work (that is, values in the workplace are differentfrom those in the community) and also a perception by employeesthat levels of control are too high.

NGOs, even local ones operating in developing countries, canhave large staffs, often working within different cultural contexts(Dichter, 1999). Staff commitment has become an issue as the sector



Kaplan’s approachis to listen to the

needs of SouthernNGOs.

has grown. When staff commitment is treated in the NGO literature,it is often intertwined with the question of participation: high levelsof participation are related to high staff morale and commitment(Cleaver, 1999, for example, touches on this issue). Yet lack of hier-archy, structure, and a perceived authority may actually militateagainst employee morale and commitment (see Hailey’s 2001 com-ments on the relationship between hierarchy and participation inSouth Asian NGOs). Concepts of participation may remain within aninstrumental paradigm (a contingency approach). The extent towhich Western principles of participation and individual incentivesare appropriate can therefore be called into question (Hailey, 2001).

Building loyalty may be more usefully seen as a longer-term reci-procal process of joint loyalty building through stability in employ-ment, integration of community and work life in both attitudinalforms and actual reciprocal involvement of community and organiza-tion, and focusing on incentives for teams. Again, participation couldmore usefully be seen as encompassing a range of stakeholders,including those within the community. (Hailey, 2001, sees buildingrelationships as more important than imposing participation.) Hence:

Proposition 5a: Local NGO staff will see imported capacity-buildingapproaches as out of line with local cultural assumptions of thevalue of people.

Proposition 5b: This will adversely affect staff commitment to the or-ganization.

Proposition 5c: Processes that involve integrating community andwork life will lead to more sustainable organizational commitment.

Perception of Change ProcessesKhadar and Perez (2003) also propose that capacity building mustaddress the need for organizational flexibility and creativity to ad-just to continuous changes in the surroundings and that transfor-mational change processes must be initiated and sustained inorganizations. Yet Western change management approaches mayengender uncertainty. Hofstede’s concept of “uncertainty avoid-ance” (1980a, 2003) is enlightening here. Change creates uncer-tainty. Hofstede proposes that cultures vary on their ability to copewith uncertainty. According to Hofstede’s data, many Westerncountries (particularly the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian coun-tries) have cultures with a high tolerance of uncertainty and ambi-guity. Blunt and Jones (1992) and Kiggundu (1988) claim thatmany African cultures are not tolerant of ambiguity, and this mayapply to cultures in other developing regions. There is some evi-dence that African cultural groups are less tolerant of uncertaintythan, for example, white settler groups in South Africa ( Jackson,

452 JACKSON


2004). Change management processes that seek to empower stafflower down the organization to take ownership of change may ex-acerbate the perception of uncertainty and may be seen as the“boss not managing” in a culture that is more hierarchical (Jackson,2002a). Introducing change management methods that work wellin Anglo-Saxon countries may serve only to increase uncertaintyand anxiety (Jackson, 2002a).

One way in which uncertainty may be effectively managedwithin a change process is through the inclusion of multiple stake-holders in the decision-making process. Involving stakeholders is atheme running throughout much of the NGO literature (Tandon,1995, in the area of NGO governance is one example). Jackson(2004) suggests that a wide stakeholder base is important to man-aging in uncertain and complex contexts, and indeed to organiza-tional performance and impact. This is no less important in theNGO sector (for example, Edwards, 1999, on NGOs in South Asia).Yet while some enlightened (commercial) organizations may beattempting to involve a wider stakeholder group, many organiza-tions in developing countries appear to be introducing more par-ticipative, empowering approaches purely on a tactical basis, asalluded to above, and not involving wider stakeholder groups instrategic decision making ( Jackson, 2004; and a general critique in Cooke and Kothari, 2001). Hailey (2001) suggests that the for-mulaic approaches to participation in the work of NGOs may be notonly culturally inappropriate but also more ominous as part of theagenda of donor agencies. He describes approaches of communitynetworking within a wide stakeholder base that may be more appro-priate in South Asia.

This suggests a need to look at participation in the decision-making process in terms of both the cultural context (what type ofparticipation is culturally appropriate, and why?) and the power rela-tions between, for example, Northern and Southern NGOs or donoragencies and development NGOs (Kothari, 2001). It is likely, cer-tainly in the contexts of sub-Saharan African countries, that widerstakeholder involvement in decision-making processes is both moreappropriate in the communalistic-oriented cultures (see Mbigi, 1997;Ayittey, 1991) and more effective in making appropriate organiza-tional decisions for sustainable development, capacity building, andchange. Hence:

Proposition 6a: Imported capacity-building approaches in SouthernNGOs will create feelings of uncertainty among local staff.

Proposition 6b: This will adversely affect the organization’s capacityto manage change.

Proposition 6c: Processes with a wider stakeholder involvement willlead to more appropriate and sustainable change.



Introducingchange

managementmethods thatwork well inAnglo-Saxoncountries mayserve only to

increaseuncertainty andanxiety [in non-Western NGOs].

Perception of People’s Adaptive CapacityKhadar and Perez (2003) argue that organizations must adapt theirservices to changing stakeholder needs. This requires environmen-tal monitoring and responsiveness to changing circumstances. Yetthe perceived level of flexibility (malleability) of staff and theirown perceived ability to influence outside events (locus of control)have been called into question by Kanungo and Jaeger (1990).There is evidence that African groups may have a perception ofbeing unable to control external events (compared with Westerngroups, which appear to have a higher internal locus of control;Blunt and Jones, 1992). Smith, Trompenaars, and Dugan’s data(1994) also appear to confirm that people in many developing coun-tries have an external locus of control, indicating that staff and man-agers believe that many outcomes are beyond their personal control.It may therefore be appropriate to assess staff’s cultural propensitytoward adaptability and influencing outside events. Hence:

Proposition 7a: Imported capacity-building approaches in SouthernNGOs will engender feelings of helplessness in the face of influenc-ing events.

Proposition 7b: This may adversely affect an organization’s capacityto make effective interventions.

Proposition 7c: Processes involving taking cognizance of staff percep-tions of their adaptive abilities will lead to more effective interventions.

Perception of Organizational ComplexityAccording to Khadar and Perez (2003), there is a need to move be-yond managing organizations as isolated entities toward managingcomplex programs, partnerships, alliances, and networks. The con-text of “developing” countries is often uncertain, risky, and com-plex. Add to this the overall operating context of NGOs whosemanagement has “to balance the needs of local communities, withcomplex financial and operational considerations, and the demandsof government and aid donors” and “face the challenge of workingwith some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in theworld today in a range of projects” (Hailey, 2001, p. 4). All of theseelements combined suggest the scale of challenge for NGOs operat-ing in developing regions. Compounding this is the mission ofmost NGOs to make fundamental changes to the way things are.

Yet these aspects raise a whole range of problems associated withtransferability across cultures, many of which are highlighted by Bhagat, Kedia, Harveston, and Triandis (2002). One particular issueis the transfer of tacit knowledge of complex systems from culturesthat are individualistic (which tend to rely on explicit, codifiedknowledge and exemplify many developed and Western countries)

454 JACKSON


There is evidencethat African

groups may havea perception ofbeing unable tocontrol external

events.

to cultures that are collectivistic (which rely on tacit knowledge andexemplify many developing and non-Western countries). Bhagat,Kedia, Harveston, and Triandis (2002) also describe the level towhich cultures are vertical (high power distance) or horizontal (lowpower distance) and the difficulties in transferring organizationalknowledge between them. The way organizational complexity isconceived and managed may present a whole raft of issues concern-ing transferability of principles and practices across cultures.

In addition, the ways the context and its complexities are per-ceived may be culturally influenced and mediated by power relations(Jackson, 2004). Rimmer (1991, p. 90) proposes that “some inter-national bodies, including the World Bank, have interests entrenchedin an African crisis: their importance, the resources they command,perhaps even their very existence, depend on a perceived need to res-cue Africa from ‘disaster.’” This comment could be extended toinclude the African elite who might have a similar vested interest inan “Africa crisis” (Barratt Brown, 1995). There is evidence from thecommercial sector in Africa that managers who have a positive atti-tude toward constraints and opportunities are beneficial to organi-zational success (Jackson, 2004). Hence:

Proposition 8a: Imported capacity-building approaches in SouthernNGOs will create conditions of confusion and a lack of understand-ing among local staff.

Proposition 8b: This will adversely affect an organization’s capacityto operate in a complex, local environment.

Proposition 8c: Processes that enable staff to make a proper assess-ment of constraints and opportunities will lead to more sustainableoperational capacity.

Perception of LearningFinally, Khadar and Perez (2003) assert that capacity building in-volves experimentation and learning by doing, as well as reflectionand analysis, to keep capacity development efforts on track and tolearn from successes and failures. Work by Hayes and Allinson(1988), Allinson and Hayes (1988), and Niles (1995) suggests thatlearning styles and expectations of the learning process vary acrosscultures, so much so that the Anglo-Saxon notion of “learning” isdifficult to translate even into other European languages (Hofstede,1991). Such a concept is learner centered and process focused.Management training and development in a multicultural contextappears to involve both process (how do we do it?) and content(what do we do?) (Hambrick, Davison, Snell, and Snow, 1998).Process can be considered further in terms of individual learningand organizational learning. Sawadogo (1995) suggests that in



African cultures, there is an emphasis on observation and an oraltradition of knowledge transmission and memorization. Lecturemethods may be more appropriate for individual learning thanworkshop methods for example. He goes on to say that knowledgeis highly respected, highly valued, and almost feared, where thelearner becomes dependent on the trainer as a source of knowl-edge and wisdom. In this view, the idea of the “independentlearner” does not appear to be appropriate.

The concept of the learning organization (from Argyris, 1992)may also be inappropriate in a developing country context. First, itrelies heavily on the idea of experiential learning and learning as aprocess, which may be at variance with African notions, as noted.Second, it relies on the perception of organizations as open systemsthat pursue the executive goals of the organization, are instrumental,and where learning takes place to fulfill executive goals ( Jackson,2002a). This also touches on the discussion about the narrowlydefined and tactical nature of participation. For this reason, to besuccessful, organizational learning for NGOs working in developingcountries may need to be more inclusive of a wider stakeholder base(for example, Tandon, 1995). Hence:

Proposition 9a: Imported capacity-building approaches in SouthernNGOs will create a negative learning environment for local staff.

Proposition 9b: This will adversely affect the development capacity ofthe organization.

Proposition 9c: Processes that take cognizance of local approachesand include local stakeholders will lead to more appropriate andsustainable staff and organizational capacity building.

Of increasing importance to both NGOs and donor agencies,along with capacity building, is the issue of impact assessment(Lewis, 2001), or how management outcomes are assessed in termsof their impact (Figure 1), more frequently now on reducing poverty.This also is bound up with the way management capacity is con-ceived and developed within international and Southern NGOs. Thisaspect is now examined within the literature.

Assessing Management ImpactAn objective of a cross-cultural approach to impact assessmentwould be to ensure that indigenous perspectives, expectations, andobjectives are given equal treatment alongside “modern,” Western,or foreign perspectives (Lewis, 2001; Marsden, 1994). The powerrelationship has already been alluded to, with the implication thatthe balance of stakeholder power is maintained fairly and appropri-ately (reflected in approaches to stakeholder analysis employed by

456 JACKSON


The concept of thelearning

organization(from Argyris,

1992) may also beinappropriate in a

developingcountry context.

some major international development NGOs: Gosling and Ed-wards, 1995; Eade and Williams, 1995). The main confounding el-ement in this is the role of ideology in presenting a worldview toless dominant cultural groups that is accepted at the cost of deni-grating one’s own culture (from Said, 1978, 1995) and specificallythe hegemony of Western management (including principles ofevaluation of effectiveness) throughout the world (discussed inBoyacigiller and Adler, 1991). The denigration of indigenous cul-tures in the postcolonial era is well discussed in the literature(Ayittey, 1991), and indigenous stakeholders may look to Westernsolutions in the absence of indigenous or appropriate hybrid ones.

A cross-cultural model that incorporates an understanding ofdominant ideologies, and that can point toward identifying and giv-ing weight to indigenous values, beliefs, and knowledge systems(Cray and Mallory, 1998; Human, 1996b), is important for under-standing concepts of impact assessment in the NGO literature. Forexample, the stakeholder assessment model of Gibb and Adhikary(2000) suggests that through developing a mutual understanding ofthe influences of the relative power of different stakeholders, it maybe possible to develop consensus on objectives that are as far as pos-sible in line with the interests of all stakeholders.

Differences in the perception of the operating environment andthe way the NGO should relate to this should also be addressed.Again, Gibb and Adhikary (2000) suggest differences between a needfor order and formal structure in the tradition of Northern corporatebureaucracies and a need to deal with ambiguity and disorder in aflexible way within a developing region where NGOs may need tobe quite entrepreneurial. Jackson (2004) contends that effectiveAfrican managers are probably able to cope with ambiguity far bet-ter than previously suggested, and this may well reflect a low uncer-tainty avoidance within African cultures. (Blunt and Jones, 1992, forexample, suggested that African cultures are high in uncertaintyavoidance.) This may influence the setting of strategic and opera-tional objectives (that is, deciding what is possible) and also the per-ceived relationship of objectives, actions, and outcomes. Forexample, a preference for flexibility and the use of intuition may sug-gest a nonlinear relationship of objectives, actions, and outcomes.

Different perceptions of the relationship between cause andeffect—from Rotter’s concept of locus of control (1966) and Trompe-naars’ cross-cultural investigations (1993)—may also influence theway these three variables are dealt with in the evaluation process. Yetthis is complicated by the additional dimension of individual or col-lective action according to, for example, Hofstede’s theory (1980a,2003). Western approaches are more likely to point toward individ-ual accountability, whereas cultures that are less individualistic andmore collectivistic may favor communal and collective action and see this as more effective than holding individual managers toaccount. Again, corporate bureaucracies may favor the measurement



of quantitative outcomes in a quest for order and accountability(Gibb and Adhikary, 2000). However, the extent to which this isapplicable in a multistakeholder, multivalue, and ambiguous con-text (such as that described in sub-Saharan Africa by Jackson, 2004)may be disputable.

Impact assessment has become an important factor in donorfunding, with NGOs themselves expressing concerns that agenciesare in fact driving assessment (Lewis, 2001). Yet often the appropri-ateness of management outcomes becomes secondary to an “objec-tive” consideration of effectiveness.

Toward a Research AgendaThis article has developed a number of propositions derived fromthe literature around a cross-cultural framework of NGO manage-ment capacity building (Figure 1) in order to suggest future direc-tions for research. In particular, this focuses on the issues oftransferability of management knowledge and capacity buildingand assessing the impact of management actions.

These propositions can be used in a number of ways. They firstsuggest a need for further empirical research through a cross-cultural, critical lens. When a wider view of the management andrelated literature than is normally found in the NGO literature istaken, understanding can be gained about the way knowledge is transferred, usually from North to South, and how hybrid systemsof NGO management are developed locally through culturalcrossvergence. This can then inform capacity building. If thesepropositions are supported through empirical testing, they havemajor implications for NGO capacity building, the management ofdevelopment NGOs, and management development in this sector(see Table 1).

In Figure 1, the relationship between capacity building andimpact assessment is shown as a loop. Impact can be assessedthrough a cross-cultural lens, using the criterion of appropriatenessand being informed by the propositions summarized in Table 1. Therelationship among stakeholder interests should be managed toensure a balance and to ensure that such interests are reflected inmanagement outcomes. Through the stakeholder base, assessmentoutcomes can be fed back into the capacity-building project, pro-viding further inputs into managing knowledge transfer and thehybridization of NGO management systems.

The third sector has for too long been neglected in the manage-ment literature. Commercial, governmental, and nongovernmentalsectors compete and cooperate within the 80 percent of the worldwe call “developing” (Punnett, 2004), and within a $60 billion busi-ness (Dichter, 1999), with annual disbursements of internationalNGOs estimated at $12 billion (Siddiqi, 2005). For the NGO sectorto substantiate its claim to have a comparative advantage based on

458 JACKSON


Cultures that areless individualistic

and morecollectivistic mayfavor communal

and collectiveaction, and see

this as moreeffective than

holding individualmanagers to

account.



(Continued)

Table 1. Research Propositions and Implications for Capacity Building

Area Issue Proposition Implications for Capacity Building

Managementsystems

Knowledgetransferbarriers

Prevalence ofpostcolonialmanagementsystems

Increasingimplementation ofpostinstrumentalmanagementsystems

Emergence of humanisticmanagementsystems

Managingcross-culturalhybridization

Perception ofvalue of people

1a. NGO management in developingregions will exhibit characteristics ofpostcolonial management.

1b. Where this is the case, there willbe a lack of fit between the culture ofthe organization and the communitythat the organization serves.

1c. Staff will exhibit signs of demoti-vation and alienation.

2a. Development NGOs are increas-ingly adopting Western, instrumentalapproaches to managing.

2b. Where this is the case, there willbe a lack of fit between the culture ofthe organization and the communitythat the organization serves.

2c. Staff will perceive this as discon-nected from their home and commu-nity lives and culture.

3a. There is some movement toward ahumanistic management approachwithin development NGOs.

3b. Where this is the case, this willprovide a closer fit between the culture of the organization and thecommunity within which it works.

3c. Staff will also be more involved inthe organization, as they will see aconnection between work and theirhome and community life.

4. Management approaches that seekto manage cross-cultural influenceand dynamics will be more success-ful, effective, and appropriate withintheir operating environment.

5a. Local NGO staff will see importedcapacity-building approaches as out ofline with local cultural assumptionsof the value of people.

5b. This will adversely affect staffcommitment to the organization.

5c. Processes that involve integratingcommunity and work life will lead to more sustainable organizationalcommitment.

If found to be prevalent, may have anegative effect on sustainable capacity building where there is aneed to gain employee commitmentand community stakeholder involvement.

If there is uncritical adoption ofWestern methods this may create a“contractualizing” organization culture, where staff themselves usethe organization in an instrumentalway. This could have a negative effect on capacity building.

If there is an emerging understand-ing and adoption of indigenous approaches, this may assist in sustainable capacity buildingthrough greater commitment andinvolvement of community andstaff.

If NGO managers demonstrate agreater cross-cultural sensitivity,this may help in facilitating appropriate transfer of knowledgeand sustainable capacity building.

If such approaches are based on instrumental values, this may leadto alienation and a negative effecton capacity building, while the integration of community and work life could lead to higher commitment.

460 JACKSON


Table 1. (Continued)

Area Issue Proposition Implications for Capacity Building

Perceptionof changeprocesses

Perception ofpeople’s adaptivecapacity

Perception of organizationalcomplexity

Perception oflearning

6a. Imported capacity-building approaches in Southern NGOs willcreate feelings of uncertainty amonglocal staff.

6b. This will adversely affect the organization’s capacity to managechange.

6c. Processes with a wider stake-holder involvement will lead to moreappropriate and sustainable change.

7a. Imported capacity-building approaches in Southern NGOs willengender feelings of helplessness inthe face of influencing events.

7b. This may adversely affect an organization’s capacity to make effective interventions.

7c. Processes involving taking cognizance of staff perceptions oftheir adaptive abilities will lead tomore effective interventions.

8a. Imported capacity-building approaches in Southern NGOs willcreate conditions of confusion and alack of understanding among localstaff.

8b. This will adversely affect an orga-nization’s capacity to operate in acomplex, local environment.

8c. Processes that enable staff tomake a proper assessment of constraints and opportunities willlead to more sustainable operationalcapacity.

9a. Imported capacity-building approaches in Southern NGOs willcreate a negative learning environment for local staff.

9b. This will adversely affect the development capacity of the organization.

9c. Processes that take cognizance oflocal approaches and include localstakeholders will lead to more appropriate and sustainable staff andorganizational capacity building.

If such approaches ignore the needfor security and stability, they may lead to anxiety and poor performance and loyalty, whilegreater stakeholder involvementcould lead to more appropriate and sustainable change.

If such approaches lead to staff see-ing outcomes beyond their control,this may lead to negative perfor-mance and alienation. More recog-nition of staff’s own perceptions oftheir adaptive abilities may be moreeffective.

If cultural issues of organizationalcomplexity are being ignored, theconfusion created by imported approaches will have a negative effect on capacity building. Properappraisal of constraints and opportunities could be more effective.

If such a negative learning environ-ment is being created, this will havea negative effect on capacity build-ing. Recognition of local ap-proaches could be more sustainable.

local responsiveness, social focus, and cultural sensitivity to people’sneeds (Cernea, 1988), its management should logically take a cross-cultural approach.

A cross-cultural perspective provides a critical lens and anunderstanding of why approaches have failed in the past in an inter-national and multicultural context. The implication for policymak-ers and practitioners of the cross-cultural framework discussed inthis article is that management should assume a central role yet be informed by a critical cross-cultural approach that seeks toinvolve diverse stakeholders more centrally in order to manage thehybridization process of cultural interactions at the organizationlevel. For researchers, multiple methods should be devised not onlyto test the propositions set out, but also to contribute to building onthis understanding and developing cross-cultural ways of knowingand doing.

TERENCE JACKSON is a professor of cross-cultural management atMiddlesex University Business School in London.

References

Abudu, F. “Work Attitudes of Africans, with Special Reference toNigeria.” International Studies of Management and Organization,1986, 16(2), 17–36.

Ahluwalia, P. Politics and Post-Colonial Theory: African Inflections.London: Routledge, 2001.

Allinson, C. W., and Hayes, J. “The Learning Styles Questionnaire:An Alternative to Kolb’s Inventory.” Journal of Management Stud-ies, 1988, 25(3), 269–281.

Allinson, R. Global Disasters: Inquiries into Management Ethics. UpperSaddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1993.

Argyris, C. On Organizational Learning. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell,1992.

Aycan, Z. “Paternalism: Towards Conceptual Refinement and Oper-ationalization.” In K. S. Yang, K. K. Hwang, and U. Kim (eds.), Sci-entific Advances in Indigenous Psychologies: Empirical, Philosophical,and Cultural Contributions. London: Cambridge University Press,in press.

Ayittey, G.B.N. Indigenous African Institutions. New York: Transna-tional Publishers, 1991.

Barratt Brown, M. Africa’s Choices: After Thirty Years of the WorldBank. London: Penguin, 1995.

Beer, M., and Spector, B. “Corporate-Wide Transformations in HumanResource Management.” In R. E. Walton and P. R. Lawrence (eds.),Human Resource Management: Trends and Challenges. Boston:Harvard Business School Press, 1985.



The third sectorhas for too long

been neglected inthe management

literature.

Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., and Triandis, H. C. “Cul-tural Variation in the Cross-Border Transfer of OrganizationalKnowledge: An Integrated Framework.” Academy of ManagementReview, 2002, 27(2), 204–221.

Binet, J. Psychologie Economique Africaine. Paris: Payot, 1970.Blunt, P., and Jones, M. L. Managing Organizations in Africa. Berlin:

Walter de Gruyter, 1992.Boon, M. The African Way: The Power of Interactive Leadership. Johan-

nesburg: Zebra Press, 1996.Boyacigiller, N. A., and Adler, N. J. “The Parochial Dinosaur: Orga-

nizational Science in a Global Context.” Academy of ManagementReview, 1991, 16(2), 262–290.

Budhwar, P. S., and Debrah, Y. A. Human Resource Management inDeveloping Countries. London: Routledge, 2001.

Cernea, M. M. “Non-Governmental Organizations and Local Devel-opment.” Washington D.C.: World Bank, 1988.

Cleaver, F. “Paradoxes of Participation: Questioning ParticipatoryApproaches to Development.” Journal of International Development,1999, 11(4), 597–612.

Cooke, B., and Kothari, U. (eds.). Participation: The New Tyranny?London: Zed Books, 2001.

Cray, D., and Mallory, G. R. Making Sense of Managing Culture. Lon-don: Thomson, 1998.

Dia, M. Africa’s Management in the 1990s and Beyond. Washington,D.C.: World Bank, 1996.

Dichter, T. W. “Globalization and Its Effects on NGOs: Efflorescenceor a Blurring of Roles and Relevance.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sec-tor Quarterly, 1999, 28(4), 38–59.

Eade, D., and Williams, S. The Oxfam Handbook of Development andRelief. Oxford: Oxfam Publications, 1995.

Edwards, M. “NGO Performance: What Breeds Success? New Evi-dence from South Asia.” World Development, 1999, 27(2),361–374.

Edwards, M., and Fowler, A. (eds.). The Earthscan Reader on NGOManagement. London: Earthscan Publications, 2002.

Fang, T. “A Critique of Hofstede’s Fifth National Cultural Dimen-sion.” International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2003,3(3), 347–368.

Foreman, K. “Evolving Global Structures and the Challenges FacingInternational Relief and Development Organizations.” Nonprofitand Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 1999, 28(4), 178–198.

Fowler, A. “Assessing NGO Performance: Difficulties, Dilemmas anda Way Ahead.” In M. Edwards and D. Hulme (eds.), NGOs—Performance and Accountability: Beyond the Magic Bullet. London:Earthscan, 1995.

Fowler, A. “Beyond Partnership: Getting Real about NGO Relation-ships in the Aid System.” IDS Bulletin: Questioning Partnership—The Reality of the Aid and NGO Relations, 2000, 31(3), 1–13.

462 JACKSON


Fowler, A. “Human Resource Management.” In M. Edwards and A. Fowler (eds.), The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management.London: Earthscan Publications, 2002.

Gibb, A., and Adhikary, D. “Strategies for Local and Regional NGODevelopment: Combining Sustainable Outcomes with SustainableOrganizations.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 2000,12, 137–161.

Gosling, L., and Edwards, M. Toolkits: A Practical Guide to Assess-ment, Monitoring, Review and Evaluation. London: Save the Chil-dren Fund, 1995.

Groves, L., and Hinton, R. (eds.). Inclusive Aid: Changing Power andRelationships in International Development. London: Earthscan,2004.

Hailey, J. “Beyond the Formulaic: Process and Practice in SouthAsian NGOs.” In B. Cooke and U. Kothari (eds.), Participation: TheNew Tyranny? London: Zed Books, 2001.

Hailey, J. “Development Leaders: Issues in NGO Leadership.” Paperpresented at the EIASM Workshop on Leadership Research, SaïdBusiness School, Dec. 2002.

Hambrick, D. C., Davison, S. C., Snell, S. A., and Snow, C. C. “WhenGroups Consist of Multiple Nationalities: Towards a New Understand-ing of the Implications.” Organization Studies, 1998, 19, 181–205.

Hayes, J., and Allinson, C. W. “Cultural Differences in Learning Stylesof Managers.” Management International Review, 1988, 28(3), 75–80.

Hendry, C., and Pettigrew, A. “Human Resource Management: AnAgenda for the 1990s.” International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 1990, 1(1), 17–44.

Hickson, D. J., and Pugh, D. S. Management Worldwide. London: Pen-guin, 1995.

Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage,1980a.

Hofstede, G. “Motivation, Leadership and Organization: Do Ameri-can Theories Apply Abroad?” Organizational Dynamics, Summer1980b, pp. 42–63.

Hofstede, G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1991.

Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, Calif.:Sage, 2003.

Howes, M. “NGOs and the Institutional Development of Member-ship Organizations: A Kenyan Case.” Journal of Development Stud-ies, 1997, 33(6), 820–848.

Human, L. “Managing Workforce Diversity: A Critique and Exam-ple from Southern Africa.” International Journal of Manpower,1996a, 17(4/5), 46–64.

Human, L. Contemporary Conversations. Dakar, Senegal: Goree Insti-tute, 1996b.

Jackson, T. International HRM: A Cross-Cultural Approach. ThousandOaks, Calif.: Sage, 2002a.



Jackson, T. “The Management of People Across Cultures: ValuingPeople Differently.” Human Resource Management, 2002b, 41(4),455–475.

Jackson, T. Management and Change in Africa: A Cross-Cultural Per-spective. London: Routledge, 2004.

Kamoche, K. N. Sociological Paradigms and Human Resources: AnAfrican Context. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000.

Kanungo, R. N., and Jaeger, A. M. “Introduction: The Need for Indigenous Management in Developing Countries.” In A. M. Jaeger and R. N. Kanungo (eds.), Management in DevelopingCountries. London: Routledge, 1990.

Kaplan, A. The Development of Capacity. Geneva: United NationsOrganization, 1999.

Kaplan, A. “Leadership and Management.” In M. Edwards and A. Fowler (eds.), The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management.London: Earthscan, 2002.

Khadar, I., and Perez, J. “Why Managers Should Be Concerned withOrganizational Capacity Development and Its Evaluation.” In D. Horton and others, Evaluating Capacity Development: Experi-ences from Research and Development Organizations Around theWorld. The Hague: International Service for National AgriculturalResearch; Ottawa: International Development Research Centre;Wageningen, the Netherlands: ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agri-cultural and Rural Cooperation, 2003.

Kiggundu, M. N. “Africa.” In R. Nath (ed.), Comparative Manage-ment: A Regional View. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1988.

Kothari, U. “Power, Knowledge and Social Control in ParticipatoryDevelopment.” In B. Cooke and U. Kothari (eds.), Participation:The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books, 2001.

Lewis, D. The Management of Non-Governmental Development Orga-nizations. London: Routledge, 2001.

Marsden, D. “Indigenous Management and the Management ofIndigenous Knowledge.” In S. Wright (ed.), Anthropology of Orga-nizations. London: Routledge, 1994.

Mawdsley, E., Townsend, J., Porter, G., and Oakley, P. Knowledge,Power and Development Agendas: NGOs North and South. Oxford,U.K.: International NGO Training and Research Centre, 2002.

Mbaku, J. M. “Improving African Participation in the Global Econ-omy: The Role of Economic Freedom.” Business and the Contem-porary World, 1998, 10(2), 297–338.

Mbigi, L. Ubuntu: The African Dream in Management. Randburg,South Africa: Knowledge Resources, 1997.

McGregor, D. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill,1960.

Mintzberg, H. “The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning.” HarvardBusiness Review, Jan.–Feb. 1994, pp. 107–114.

Niles, F. S. “Cultural Differences in Learning Motivation and Learn-ing Strategies: A Comparison of Overseas and Australian Students

464 JACKSON


at an Australian University.” International Journal of InterculturalRelations, 1995, 19(3), 369–385.

Priem, R. L., Love, L. G., and Shaffer, M. “Industrialization and Val-ues Evolution: The Case of Hong Kong and Guangzhou, China.”Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2000, 17(3), 473–492.

Punnett, B. J. “The Developing World: Towards a Managerial Under-standing.” In H. W. Lane, M. L. Maznevski, M. E. Mendenhall, andJ. McNett (eds.), Handbook of Global Management: A Guide to Man-aging Complexity. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.

Ralston, D. A., Holt, D. H., Terpstra, R. H., and Kai-Cheng, Y. “TheImpact of National Culture and Economic Ideology on Manager-ial Work Values: A Study of the United States, Russia, Japan andChina.” Journal of International Business Studies, 1997, 28(1),177–207.

Rao, T. V. Human Resource Development: Experiences, Intervention,Strategies. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1996.

Rimmer, D. “Thirty Years of Independent Africa.” Africa Insights,1991, 21(2), 90–96.

Rotter, J. B. “General Expectancies for Internal Versus External Con-trol of Reinforcement.” Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80(1),1–28.

Said, E. W. Orientalism: Western Concepts of the Orient. London: Pan-theon, 1978.

Said, E. W. Orientalism: Western Concepts of the Orient. (25th anniv. ed.)London: Penguin Classics, 1995.

Salm, J. “Coping with Globalization: A Profile of the Northern NGOSector.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 1999, 28(4),87–104.

Sawadogo, G. “Training for the African Mind.” International Journalof Intercultural Relations, 1995, 19(2), 281–293.

Schech, S., and Haggis, J. Culture and Development: A Critical Intro-duction. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.

Siddiqi, B. “Picture This: Aiding Development.” Finance and Devel-opment, 2005, 42(3), 14–15.

Smith, P. B., Trompenaars, F., and Dugan, S. “The Rotter Locus ofControl Scale in 43 Countries: A Test of Cultural Relativity.” Inter-national Journal of Psychology, 1994, 30, 377–400.

Spivak, G. C. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. NewYork: Macmillan, 1988.

Storey, J. Developments in Management of Human Resources. Oxford:Blackwell, 1992.

Swartz, E., and Davies, R. “Ubuntu: The Spirit of African Transfor-mational Management—A Review.” Leadership and OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 1997, 18(6), 260–294.

Tandon, R. “‘Board Games’: Governance and Accountability in NGOs.”In M. Edwards and D. Hulme (eds.), NGOs—Performance andAccountability: Beyond the Magic Bullet. London: Earthscan, 1995.



Taylor, F. W. Scientific Management. New York: HarperCollins, 1911.Taylor, H. “Insights into Participation from Critical Management and

Labour Process Perspectives.” In B. Cooke and U. Kothari (eds.),Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books, 2001.

Trompenaars, F. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding CulturalDiversity in Business. London: Nicholas Brealey, 1993.

Tyson, S., and Fell, A. Evaluating the Personnel Function. London:Hutchinson, 1986.

Vaughan, E. “The Trial Between Sense and Sentiment: A Reflectionon the Language of HRM.” Journal of General Management, 1994,19, 20–32.

Wohlgemuth, L., Carlsson, J., and Kifle, H. “Introduction.” In L.Wohlgemuth, J. Carlsson, and H. Kifle (eds.), Institution Buildingand Leadership in Africa. Uppsala, Sweden: Nordiska Afrikainsti-tutet, 1998.

466 JACKSON


A critical cross-cultural perspective for developing nonprofit international management capacity

Documents

Transcript of A critical cross-cultural perspective for developing nonprofit international management capacity