Knowledge appropriation and HRM: the MNC experience in Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper takes a critical look at the processes of knowledge appropriation through the management of human resources (HRM) and culture by multinational companies (MNCs) in a developing nation, Tanzania. We compare the approaches of two global MNC banks, Citibank, an American bank, and Standard Bank, a South African bank, and examine how each aligns its HR practices and policies with its conception of corporate culture with a view to strengthening its ability to secure, i.e. appropriate the contribution from its human resources. Both banks claim to follow a transnational model of ‘best practices’, by relying on proven global capabilities to manage people. However, we found evidence of a complex set of approaches in the way each bank developed its organizational and HRM practices and legitimized them through ethnocentric values. Using Foucault's social theory, we examine the way MNCs' knowledge appropriation regimes emerge and become rationalized at the organizational level. The notion of normalization, in particular, enables us to examine the application of organizational controls and the attendant implication about the protections available to employees in the Tanzanian banking sector. Keywords: HRMknowledge appropriationMNC banksnormalizationTanzania
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".