Decolonizing Management and Organization Studies: Taking Stock and Looking Forward

Calls to “decolonize” management and organization studies (MOS) have become increasingly louder within the field (e.g.: Banerjee, 2022; Barros & Alcadipani, 2022; Coronil, 2016; Jammulamadaka et al., 2021; Maldonado-Torres, 2011). These calls stem from an understanding that MOS in its current form has been shaped primarily by European and North American perspectives, world views, and concerns in relation to management, organizing, and organizations (Ibarra-Colado, 2006; Mignolo, 2002; Nkomo, 2011; Quijano, 2000). Similar to other academic domains and bodies of knowledge, MOS is colonial. It has been profoundly defined by intellectual currents emanating from Europe and North America, shaping its language, theories, methodologies, and epistemologies, perpetuating a conspicuous Eurocentric and North American bias in the field (Barros & Alcadipani, 2022; Ibarra-Colado, 2006; Nkomo, 2011; Quijano, 2007; Weston & Imas, 2019). Other perspectives have been historically marginalized and silenced as a result of colonialism. With colonialism, the world became anchored around Europe and North America and their ways of knowing (see Coronil, 2016; Fanon, 2007; Quijano, 2007; Said, 2003). Decolonial approaches seek to redress this, tracing the origin of this problem back to colonialism and the manner it structured a world centered around Europe and North America, deeming other worldviews irrelevant or lacking reason (Ibarra-Colado, 2006; Mignolo, 2002; Quijano, 2007). Decolonial approaches seek to bring to the fore understanding of organizations, organizing, managing, and management that were put in a backseat by colonialism (Ibarra-Colado, 2006; A. J. Mbembe, 2016; A. Mbembe, 2021; Mignolo, 2002).

In this paper, we attempt to do several things. First, we outline the origins of decolonial thinking in the context of MOS, capturing the different dimensions that constitute the approach, highlighting their diverse geopolitical origins, orientations, and how they have been mobilized in the field. In so doing, we take stock. We present a historical perspective on the emergence and evolution of MOS knowledge, drawing attention to the colonially structured domination of the field by Europe and North America. We highlight how decolonial approaches that emerged from South East Asia and the Middle East, anchored in culture and literature studies, began making inroads in the field aligned with the critical management studies (CMS), “Postcolonial Studies/Postcolonialism” (see Bhabha, 1994; Said, 2003; Spivak, 1988; Young, 2001). We also draw attention to approaches that originated in Africa, which also have strong influences from literary studies (e.g., Achebe, 1958; Nkrumah, 1966; Thiong’o, 1998). We discuss the approaches that emerged from Latin America that place a particular emphasis on the notion of “modernity” and how it served to legitimize colonial subjugation and the knowledge systems of the colonized (see Dussel, 1993; Ibarra-Colado, 2006; Quijano, 2000). We also draw attention to the growing interest in the field in what has been labeled as “Indigenous perspectives” (see Bastien et al., 2022; Bruton et al., 2022; Cutcher & Dale, 2022; Smith, 2012).

We conclude the paper by discussing and proposing ways in which more impetus and momentum could be given to drive the decolonization of the field. In particular, we draw attention to the importance of the notion of hybridity in decolonial approaches in the field (see Bhabha, 1994; Frenkel & Shenhav, 2006; Seremani & Clegg, 2016). We also call for more attention to be given to epistemology and intersectionality (Bothello et al., 2019; Grosfoguel, 2007; Ibarra-Colado, 2006). We also suggest more practical steps that need to be taken into account in the endeavor to decolonize MOS.

MOS as a body of knowledge originated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, during a period marked by industrialization and the emergence of large corporations, necessitating systematic management approaches. Figures such as Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol significantly influenced and shaped the body of knowledge that we refer to MOS today. Yet, the origins of the field are intricately linked to colonialism. Colonialism that sought to legitimize colonial oppression by arguing that the colonized were incapable of reason, morality, and constructing credible knowledge (Dussel, 1993; Ibarra-Colado, 2006). This has left us with a field that is morally tainted and often struggles with relevance and engaging organization and management realities outside of Europe and North America. For example, Taylor’s methods and “Principles of Management” were shaped by practices on slave plantations that sought to achieve forced docility and domination of slaves (Cooke, 2003) and later extended to the US military (Bruce & Nyland, 2011). Furthermore, the approaches to management and organizations that anchor the field are centered on realities, concerns, theories, methods, and epistemologies that originated primarily in Western Europe.

Prasad argue that this stems from the distinct traditions of xenology. European xenology, shaped by historical events like European conquests and religious conflicts, tended to compare and rank different cultural and political systems while viewing “difference” as perilous. Such distinct traditions of xenology have left a colonial imprint in MOS. The historical trends of imperialism and colonialism marginalized knowledge systems that did not originate from the proverbial “center,” Europe and North America (Ibarra-Colado, 2006; Mbembe, 2016; Mignolo, 2002; Quijano, 2000). This is something scholarship in MOS is increasingly aware of and has seen a growing interest in decolonial approaches. In sum, momentum has built around decolonizing MOS based on the growing acknowledgment that the core of the field has been defined and shaped by colonialism.

Initially, decolonial approaches found a home in MOS within CMS. In recent times, scholars have pushed decolonial approaches to more central spaces in MOS. For example, Frenkel and Shenhav (2006) use the decolonial notion of hybridity, coined by Bhabha (1994) to argue that MOS needs to pay greater attention to how the formerly colonized and their colonizers mutually influenced each other understandings of organizational and management knowledge. Barros and Alcadipani (2022) problematize the dominance of the English language in the production of knowledge in MOS.

The drive to decolonize MOS needs to be understood as a project that seeks to decenter Europe and North America, which have traditionally dominated the field as a result of colonialism (A. Mbembe, 2021). It is an effort to push for voices and perspectives that were silenced by colonialism to be heard on their own terms. This entails confronting and dismantling the European and North American knowledge hegemony in MOS and the associated colonial power structures that created this state of affairs (Jammulamadaka et al., 2021). It is an attempt to create spaces within MOS that integrate, accommodate, and appreciate alternative perspectives and worldviews that have historically been silenced by colonialism. Yet, decolonizing MOS is not only about allowing colonially silenced perspectives to be heard. It is also about “provincializing” Europe and the United States and the knowledge produced within these geographies that have claimed to have universal relevance, creating space for previously suppressed voices to speak and be heard (Ibarra-Colado, 2006). There are worlds that exist outside of Europe and North America that have a great deal to say about organizing and management that were silenced or annihilated by colonialism (Banerjee, 2022; Mbembe, 2016; Thiong’o, 1998; Yousfi, 2021).

However, decolonial approaches are not a single theory nor a homogenous approach, having diverse geo-political origins, theoretical orientations, and spheres of emphasis (Banerjee, 2022; Young, 2001). Below, we outline some of these diverse approaches that have laid the foundations for the decolonization of MOS, which is gaining momentum. Our review is by no means exhaustive, but we try to illustrate the diverse origins of the perspectives gathered now under “decolonial approaches” that forged epistemological, theoretical, and methodological tools that scholars increasingly adopt in the quest to decolonize MOS. While we try to distinguish these approaches, they often refer to and build on each other.

One of the foundational pillars of decolonial approaches in MOS today is “postcolonial theory,” which is sometimes referred to as “postcolonialism” or “postcolonial studies” within the field (see Young, 2001). This critique of colonialism emerged primarily from South East Asia and the Middle East. This colonial critique emerged from literary and cultural studies of the impacts of colonialism, the roles played by scholarship in Europe and North America in instilling colonial hierarchies as well as engaging the manifestations of these hierarchies on questions such as identity and representations (see Bhabha, 1994, 1998; Fanon, 2007; Said, 2003). The intellectual pillars of this approach include the likes of Homi Bhabha (see Bhabha, 1994, 1998), Edward Said (see Said, 2003), Aime Cesaire (see Césaire, 2001) and Gayatri Spivak (see Spivak, 1988). For example, Bhabha’s work has done a great deal to shed light on the questions of identity and culture among the former colonized, coining the important notion of “hybridity” which has garnered appeal in International Business where it has been used to explore the relationships and tensions between European and North American multinational corporations and the those in other parts of the globe that work for such organizations or consume their products (see Frenkel & Shenhav, 2006; Yousfi, 2014; Zohdi, 2017). In the context of the ongoing efforts to decolonize MOS, Bhabha’s view becomes important as he argues that the formerly colonized exist in an interstitial space of hybridity, a fluid mixture between the ideals of the colonizers and their own. This suggests that efforts to reconstruct perspectives that were annihilated by colonialism may be in vain because the views that exist in the Global South are largely of a hybrid nature. Said (2003) took a different approach and argued for a binary understanding of the relationship between the colonizers and the colonized, drawing attention to representations of the “non-westerns”/the (former) colonized, highlighting how skewed representations of them are constructed in the media and social sciences and ultimately organization and management knowledge. Closely affiliated with this approach is the work by Frantz Fanon (see Fanon, 2007, 2015), which had a particular emphasis on the psychological dimensions of colonialism. Fanon’s work also sometimes appears in decoloniality approaches from Latin America and in the neo-colonial perspectives that emerged from Africa.

Similar to postcolonial approaches, in Africa, critiques of colonialism emerged centered around the question of culture, identity, and nationhood following the formal end(s) of colonialism in Africa. A significant portion of the work that emerged from Africa was in the space of literature in which writers such as Achebe and Ngugi questioned the dominance of “Western” ideals, culture, and languages in the former colonies despite the formal end of colonialism (see Achebe, 1958; Thiong’o, 1998) and how this restricted the colonized from being able to articulate their perspectives in their own terms. For example, Thiong’o problematizes the dominance of the English language in Kenya, arguing that there are many things about Kenyan culture and knowledge that cannot be articulated in English (Thiong’o, 1998). He argues that this linguistic dominance is not mundane, stating that “the choice of language and the use to which language is put is central to a people’s definition of themselves in relation to the natural and social environment, indeed in relation to the entire universe” … Even at their most radical and pro-African position in their sentiments and articulation of problems, they still took it as axiomatic that the renaissance of African cultures lay in the languages of Europe” (Thiong’o, 1998, pp. 4–5). Reflecting on his experiences in Rhodesia, present-day Zimbabwe, Dambudzo Marechera (2009) concurs with Thiong’o, stating, “For a black writer, the language is very racist; you have to have harrowing fights and hair-rising panga duals with the language before you can make it do all that you want it to do.” In the context of MOS and the drive to decolonize, this argument was recently picked up and reiterated by Barros and Alcadipani (2022). They question the dominance of English as the lingua franca of the field, highlighting how this impedes the integration of scholarship and ideas from non-Anglo-Saxon regions of the globe. They target this important critique to publication outlets and the overall colonial structure of the field. In that sense, MOS finds itself in a quandary. For the ideas from the (former) colonized to be heard, they need to be framed in languages that are alien to the realities and rationalities of the (former) colonized. Coming from the tradition of postcolonial and Subaltern Studies, Spivak (1988) makes a similar argument, questioning how and if subalterns can articulate their worldviews and perspectives whilst relying on hegemonic world views and languages. The very same that were used to subjugate them.

Nkrumah (see Nkrumah, 1966) questioned what the newly freed African nations could become given the continued domination of European powers in Africa despite the formal ends of colonialism. He coins the term “neo-colonialism” to depict the predicament of these newly independent African nations. The terminology of “neo-colonialism” has gone on to gain currency in the African framing, critique, and engagement with colonialism within MOS and more broadly. More recently, Mbembe added impetus to this African critique of colonialism (see Mbembe), drawing attention to the coloniality of the field and universities and institutions of tertiary education more broadly.

For Latin American approaches, the colonial problem is dated to the initial encounter between Europeans and South America in the 1600s (see Coronil, 2016; Lugones, 2010; Mignolo, 2002; Quijano, 2007). They place an important emphasis on the role played by the notion of “modernity” in legitimizing the brutality of colonialism and silencing the voices, ideas, and perspectives of the colonized (Dussel, 1993; Quijano, 2000). Since the initial colonial encounters, this modernity has been framed in many different terms. In the case of MOS in its current form, it is understood as a part of a colonial matrix of power (Coronil, 2016; Quijano, 2007) that perpetuates that belief the “real” management and organization knowledge, modernity, can only come from Europe and North America. This scholarship problematizes neo-liberalism and the role it has played in perpetuating colonial power relations (e.g., Faria et al., 2010). Ibarra-Colado (2006) labels the domination of European and North American ways of knowing in the field of “epistemic colonialism.” A field of knowledge that claims universal relevance, yet its theories, concepts, methods, and epistemologies originate from a small part of the globe because of colonialism. He goes further and questions why it should be of any surprise that these theories of management and organization often find themselves in a jam when confronted with the realities of regions that are not Europe and North America. From this approach in Latin America emerged the terminology of “(de)coloniality.” A school of thought that seeks to delink from Eurocentric knowledge hierarchies and ways of being in the world and advocate and normalize alternative forms of knowing and being. From this perspective, decolonizing must entail delegitimating the monopoly that the Global North has had on what is perceived as relevant knowledge. The key to doing this is deconstructing and questioning notions of modernity that have allowed Europe and North America to occupy a high seat in the construction of knowledge. In contemporary MOS and the push to decolonize, emerging from this school of thought are scholars such as Faria and Hemais (2017) and Coronil (2016).

The interest in decolonial approaches has also seen growing attempts to include the views and perspectives of the original or “Indigenous populations” in places such as Australia, Canada, the USA, parts of Africa, and Latin America (e.g., Bastien et al., 2022; Bruton et al., 2022; Cutcher & Dale, 2022; Domínguez & Luoma, 2020). These approaches seek to carve out a space in MOS that addresses the realities, concerns, perspectives, and knowledge that were muted by settler colonialism of “Indigenous peoples.” For conceptual clarity, the “Indigenous” here does not refer to the general connotation of the term in which any country and its people, as well as their way of knowing and being, can be classified as “Indigenous.” It refers to the people subjected to colonial oppression by settler colonialism, and this approach to decolonizing seeks to give them a voice. Recognizing the significance of Indigenous knowledge expands our understanding of organizations, organizing, and managing beyond Euro and North America-centric perspectives that dominate MOS. For example, Maori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith fervently advocates for incorporating Indigenous epistemologies in research methodology, highlighting their potential to challenge dominant knowledge paradigms (Smith, 2012). The inclusion of Indigenous knowledge offers a more inclusive perspective that respects diverse worldviews and organizational methods, which is the core of the push to decolonize MOS.

In sum, decolonial approaches have gathered momentum within MOS. They are diverse in terms of their origins and concerns and are centered on trying to carve out spaces in the field in which the perspectives, views, and lived experiences of those excluded by colonialism and the coloniality of MOS can heard in their own terms. In essence, this is an attempt to restructure the power dynamics, a field that is increasingly aware that it is colonial. Whilst decolonial approaches have begun making important inroads into MOS, we believe that there are a number of unexplored avenues that would give decolonial efforts in MOS greater momentum. We discuss these below.

The growing interest in decolonial approaches has succeeded in drawing attention to the reality that MOS is colonial. It is a field embedded in colonial power relations and dynamics that are manifest in its theories, methods, epistemologies, and ontologies being centered in Europe and North America. Implicit in this is that knowledge of organizations, organizing, and management is the privy of the Global North. This is a colonial myth that, nonetheless, continues to be perpetuated in the field. Decolonial approaches take issue with this state of affairs. Yet, despite the emerging interest and attention drawn to decolonial approaches, the way forward is blurry. There is no one fixed solution to addressing the field’s coloniality. Different propositions have come forward, reflecting the diversity of thought within the field and the multiple dimensions and faces of the coloniality of MOS. In the section that follows, we discuss some of these propositions and how they could play a role in decolonizing MOS, as well as draw attention to approaches and perspectives that have currently gone under the radar that could play an important role. In so doing, we do not target these proposals at a specific strain of approaches given how the streams have cross-pollinated historically and have continued to do so to create what we are calling decolonial approaches in MOS today. As such, our proposals speak to decolonial approaches understood as products of postcolonial, neocolonial, coloniality, indigenous, and other perspectives that seek to challenge the coloniality of the field.

Whilst decolonial approaches converge on the goal of problematizing the colonial power relations that have shaped the field and carving out spaces that allow the colonially excluded to be integrated, there are diverse perspectives on how this can be achieved. Some have argued that the DNA of the field is colonial, and, as such, it cannot engage in decolonizing beyond a surface-level adoption of decolonial language and terminology (e.g., Banerjee, 2022). Others have argued that more attention needs to be paid to methodology given that the methods that dominate MOS are European and North American and maybe ill-adapted to engage with MOS realities in other parts of the world (Weston & Imas, 2019). Some have argued that a decolonizing MOS is one that takes context more seriously (Filatotchev et al., 2022; Hamann et al., 2020), whilst others have called for greater attention to be given to the epistemological structure of the field and its colonial foundations (Ibarra-Colado, 2006; Seremani & Clegg, 2016). Other scholars have drawn attention to the overall structure of the field, drawing attention to the question of language and the manner in which journals in the field are structured in a colonial manner that makes it difficult for those from the Global South to actively participate in the dialogues and discussions in MOS (Barros & Alcadipani, 2022; Gantman et al., 2015). Some scholars have argued for the decolonization of the curriculum. If such diverse perspectives exist, it is precisely because of the enormity of the task of decolonizing MOS and the multidimensional nature of the coloniality of the field. Below we highlight the importance of taking the notion of “hybridity” (Bhabha, 1994) in the decolonial push.

The efforts to decolonize MOS need to be understood not as a drive to excavate “authentic” precolonial perspectives nor “authentic” views of the Global South and their takes on different theories and approaches in MOS. Bhabha (1994) cautioned on this, arguing that we need to embrace the reality that colonialism changed the world in irreversible terms in both the Global North and the Global South. Spivak (1988) also raises this concern. What we find in the (former) colonies are not untouched precolonial ways of knowing and being but rather hybridity. A mixture of what existed before and after colonization. This is important as the decolonial project needs to avoid the trap of trying to dig up pre-colonial forms of knowledge that no longer exist nor channel its efforts to reconstruct romanticized and purist perspectives in efforts to decolonize MOS. The goal is to restructure that field in a manner that allows diverse perspectives to be integrated, allowing and nurturing perspectives from geo-political and regions of the globe that are silenced by colonialism.

Related to this, a growing body of work on decolonizing has called for efforts to decolonize MOS to escape a binary positioning that pits the “Global North” and “Global South” in opposition or “West” and “East” (Frenkel & Shenhav, 2006; Hamann et al., 2020; Nkomo, 2011; Seremani & Clegg, 2016). Whilst speaking on the colonial nature of leadership studies and its representations of “African” leadership, Nkomo suggests that the key lies in finding spaces of translation and dialogue that move beyond stereotypical colonial images of “African” leadership and management and proposed counter-images that often reflect the excesses of cultural relativism (Nkomo, 2011). Similarly, Hamann et al. (2020) express an unease with efforts in MOS to decolonize framed in this binary manner. Mignolo (2002) makes a similar call, suggesting the decolonizing MOS must move beyond just criticism of Eurocentrism, calling for the embracing of the notion of “transmodernity.” Transmodernity means that modernity is not strictly European but a planetary phenomenon to which the “excluded barbarians” have contributed, although their contribution has not been acknowledged (Mignolo, 2002).

The arguments of Gordon (2021) are pertinent in this regard. Gordon (2021) argues for the notion of “creolization.” “Creolization” encourages critical thinking about how “worlds” are constantly coming together in their distinctiveness. Unlike the approaches to decolonizing that emphasize the purity of disciplines, creolization highlights the impure nature of disciplines and knowledge, celebrating hybridity. This notion of creolized hybrids celebrates the impure and hybrid nature of knowledge systems, thus enriching the field. Gordon (2021) challenges the notion of MOS knowledge as solely originating in Europe and North America, suggesting that this view fails to recognize the creolized or mixed origins of knowledge systems. Euro-American thought cannot be considered a unilateral “Northern” miracle of thought because knowledge from other parts orts of the globe have influenced it for thousands of years. Gordon’s critique of prevailing decolonization paradigms underscores the importance of critically re-evaluating the North-South divide in our decolonization endeavors, which may exist primarily as a conceptual construct while neglecting crucial aspects, such as the emergence of knowledge from both core and periphery regions, with the periphery (South) increasingly assuming a central role in shaping contemporary discourses. The growing efforts to decolonize MOS open a new avenue of inquiry for the approach. This suggests an approach to decolonizing MOS that not only seeks to integrate previously excluded perspectives in the field. But one that also explores the way in which the colonized influenced MOS knowledge.

A number of scholars have drawn attention to the importance of engaging with the question of epistemology in efforts to decolonize MOS (e.g., Banerjee, 2022; Seremani & Clegg, 2016). This is something we believe to be of great importance for the decolonial push. This is to say that the field needs to engage more seriously with alternative ways of knowing and constructing knowledge. This entails moving away from the increasingly formulaic approaches in the field and finding ways to engage with approaches to knowledge production that do not necessarily align themselves with the canons of knowing that have historically (colonially) dominated the field. In terms of trying to decolonize MOS, this places the spotlight on efforts to decolonize that are anchored in knowledge systems and ways of constructing knowledge from the Global North. Bearing in mind the above-mentioned arguments for appreciating hybridity, the task is not so much to retrieve pure epistemological positions untouched by colonialism but to restructure the field in a manner that makes it receptive to different epistemologies. This is to say that the field needs to have an introspection on how knowledge is constructed as well as how what is considered legitimate knowledge in the field is constructed.

Similar concerns have been raised about research methodology in this drive to decolonize MOS (Weston & Imas, 2019). Encouraging scholars to explore alternative research methodologies that are better suited to non-Western contexts is crucial (Santos, 2014). It requires a willingness to adapt and innovate beyond traditional Western research methods. Recognizing the limitations of these methods in capturing the nuances of non-Western organizational contexts is a fundamental aspect of this shift. The field is dominated by methods forged in the Global North. This means opening the field to broader methodological approaches. If today there are discussions on how and why theories and methods from the Global North fail to capture the realities of the Global South, it has a lot to do with how the field attempts to use methods and ways of knowing from the Global North to try to make sense of the Global South. The rationalities behind the methods that dominate the field may be unable to capture the realities and rationalities in the Global South. Simply applying research methods created in the Global North to empirical settings in the Global South does a disservice to decolonial approaches and what they represent. This means a reorientation of the manner in which the field is structured to allow it to move away from methodological domination by perspectives from the Global North. Sometimes, organizational and management knowledge is considered out of the norm, and yet it simply represents the limitations of the methods constructed in the Global North to capture organizational and management realities in the Global South. This is an important aspect of decolonizing yet can be detrimental to decolonial approaches when such efforts remain centered on theories, methodologies, and epistemologies from the Global North. This means moving away from using the “Global South” as an empirical setting to explore the boundary conditions of theories and ways of knowing from the Global North. It necessitates restructuring the field in a manner that allows the Global South(s) to be integrated in their own theoretical, methodological, and epistemological terms, not just as empirical settings.

Scholarship has recognized intersectionality and Critical Race Theory as robust frameworks and reference points that potentially add an important dimension to the efforts to decolonize MOS (Abdelnour & Abu Moghli, 2021; Davis & Walsh, 2020). Through an intersectional lens, scholars would be able to unveil the multifaceted dimensions of privilege and marginalization within organizational contexts, emphasizing the importance of considering the experiences of historically excluded individuals. Embracing intersectionality in research is vital, acknowledging that identities and experiences are shaped by a multitude of factors, including race, gender, class, and more (Crenshaw, 1989). This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of organizational phenomena, acknowledging the complex interplay of multiple dimensions of identity. Furthermore, taking intersectionality more seriously would open an avenue to explore the power dynamics of knowledge production and roles and positions of privilege manifest in decolonial scholars in speaking of and on behalf of those who do not have a voice.

First, we believe that a first practical step would be pushing for more collaborative research partnerships with marginalized communities for decolonizing management and organization knowledge. Involving community members as active participants in the research process challenges traditional power dynamics and ensures that the voices of those directly affected by management practices are heard (Smith, 2012). These partnerships grant researchers access to local knowledge and perspectives that may challenge established narratives, fostering the co-creation of knowledge that respects diverse ways of knowing and questions hierarchical relationships between researchers and the researched.

Furthermore, the journey toward decolonization in MOS also demands a fundamental rethinking of curricula and knowledge production methodologies, diversifying the MOS knowledge that is taught in our business schools and universities. This involves a critical examination of existing curricula, identifying areas dominated by Euro and North America-centric paradigms, and devising methods to alternative viewpoints. This includes revising course descriptions, reading lists, and learning outcomes to prioritize a more global outlook on management and organizations (Mbembe, 2001). A key part of this is developing courses that intentionally incorporate non-European and North American case studies, theories, and practices. Such an approach would challenge and encourage students to explore alternative viewpoints (Quijano, 2000). Faculty development programs can facilitate this transition. Establishing safe spaces within academic institutions where students and scholars can openly discuss issues related to decolonization, diversity, and inclusion is crucial (Spivak, 1988). These spaces should encourage open dialogue and the exchange of ideas, fostering a culture of inclusivity and mutual respect. Furthermore, training faculty in inclusive pedagogical practices that create welcoming learning environments for all students is foundational (Hooks, 1994). This includes being attentive to diverse learning styles, cultural sensitivities, and the use of inclusive language.

To decolonize MOS, active efforts also need to be made to seek out and support scholarship from the Global South within the academic community. Establishing platforms for their research and ensuring that their voices are heard are essential steps. Organizing conferences or research symposia that specifically highlight the work of scholars from underrepresented regions can facilitate this (Quijano, 2000). Kondayya et al. (2025) draw attention to academic conferences and how they are structured in ways that silence alternative and potentially important perspectives from the Global South. Zoogah et al. (2025) target their colonial critique on the academic journals that dominate the field, highlighting the role played by the Africa Journal of Management in advocating greater inclusivity in terms of ways of knowing. This key if decolonial scholarship is to challenge traditional/colonial publication practices that favor Western-centric research, which is a significant step in decolonization (Mbembe, 2016). It is essential to actively encourage journals and academic publishers to seek out and publish research from diverse geographical and cultural contexts. Additionally, re-evaluating peer review processes to ensure fairness and inclusivity in evaluating research from different perspectives is imperative (Spivak, 1988). Encouraging and facilitating collaborative research projects that involve scholars from different regions and backgrounds is essential (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2015). Such collaborations can lead to more holistic and contextually relevant research outcomes. By embracing diversity in research teams, MOS can shed light on the multifaceted nature of organizational phenomena.

Decolonizing MOS is a moral and intellectual imperative. It requires a comprehensive and sustained effort to reimagine curricula, diversify knowledge production, and create inclusive academic spaces. These practical steps are vital for breaking free from disciplinary decadence, embracing diverse perspectives, and contributing to a more equitable and globally relevant field. Decolonization opens doors to alternative ways of understanding management and organizations, acknowledging their complexity and contextuality. In embracing this journey, MOS honors the plurality of knowledge and recognizes that true excellence emerges when we celebrate the diversity of voices shaping our discipline. It is a commitment to a more inclusive, just, and relevant future for the study of management and organizations. Through decolonization, we actively engage with the world beyond the confines of Western-centric thinking, enriching our discipline and contributing to a more equitable global academic landscape. Creating inclusive academic spaces is pivotal in promoting decolonization within MOS. These spaces should not merely tolerate diverse perspectives but actively celebrate them, ensuring that all scholars and students have an equal opportunity to thrive. Encouraging research teams to be diverse in terms of cultural backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives is foundational (Nkomo, 2019). These diverse teams can bring a richer array of insights to research projects, challenging preconceived notions and enriching the quality of academic inquiry.