摘要：This research has alluded to Weirs paper on management in the Arab world as a fourth paradigm that can be seen as distinct from the US, European and Japanese models. Case study investigation is used to explore and elucidate the 'lived experience' of management in these organizations. Weir talks about cultural values and a matrix of belief in behavioral practice and associational norms, also Arab management approach relies on ‘networks of relatives and friends’ which stimulates the researchers to cover these issues under the social capital umbrella. The interviews material has shown that whilst the idea of a radically discontinuous paradigm shift sits uneasily with the idea of organizationally and culturally hybrid forms of borrowing, it is nevertheless possible to discern a number of ways in which Weir’s argument might be nuanced. Social capital would form one dimension of the paradigm; Organizational hybridity would represent a second major dimension and neo-tribalism a third whereas relations management would represent a fourth. However, Globalization is considered as an 'external' dimension in which Arab countries are seen to participate in the emerging international division of labour and expertise. The fourth management paradigm was a piece of mosaic; although it includes small pieces of different colours, it is still a distinctive entity in itself.
其他摘要：This research has alluded to Weirs paper on management in the Arab world as a fourth paradigm that can be seen as distinct from the US, European and Japanese models. Case study investigation is used to explore and elucidate the 'lived experience' of management in these organizations. Weir talks about cultural values and a matrix of belief in behavioral practice and associational norms, also Arab management approach relies on ‘networks of relatives and friends’ which stimulates the researchers to cover these issues under the social capital umbrella. The interviews material has shown that whilst the idea of a radically discontinuous paradigm shift sits uneasily with the idea of organizationally and culturally hybrid forms of borrowing, it is nevertheless possible to discern a number of ways in which Weir’s argument might be nuanced. Social capital would form one dimension of the paradigm; Organizational hybridity would represent a second major dimension and neo-tribalism a third whereas relations management would represent a fourth. However, Globalization is considered as an 'external' dimension in which Arab countries are seen to participate in the emerging international division of labour and expertise. The fourth management paradigm was a piece of mosaic; although it includes small pieces of different colours, it is still a distinctive entity in itself.
