Andrew Sturdy · 2020-05-22 · Andrew Sturdy Imperial College London, UK The Adoption of...

Andrew Sturdy Imperial College London, UK

The Adoption of Management Ideas andPracticesTheoretical Perspectives and Possibilities

Abstract The adoption of new management ideas and practices has become an importantand substantial area of study and debate within organizational studies, often under thelabel of management fads. However, there has been little critical reflection on the range oftheoretical approaches used and their problems and possibilities. Moreover, while there hasbeen some overlap with broader issues of management knowledge and learning, debatesand literatures remain largely distinct. By way of an overview and as a way of furtheringthe existing multi-disciplinarity of debates on learning, this article selectively constructsand assesses six broad perspectives on the adoption of management ideas. Rational viewsare initially contrasted with various psychodynamic, dramaturgical, political, culturaland institutional approaches. However, it is argued that existing perspectives andclassifications tend to be dualistic and either idealize or marginalize managerialrationality. This leads to empirical neglect and the possibility for approaches whererational management is acknowledged as necessarily bounded and emotional. KeyWords: emotion; fads; knowledge diffusion; rationality; theory; translation

With the increased profile and the proliferation of management ideas, it is nowcommonplace to hear both respectful and sceptical discussions of the latest ‘fadsand fashions’. More specifically, debates continue in both media and academiccircles as to the value and attraction of seemingly new ideas and of their promoterssuch as management gurus, consultants and academics (e.g. Abrahamson andEisenman, 2001). Indeed, such concerns have been given added impetus by therediscovery of the competitive value of managing knowledge and learning (e.g. seeEisenhardt and Santos, 2002). A whole host of studies have emerged exploringhow and why ideas and practices are adopted by organizations and to what extentthese processes are concerned with improving organizational performance. How-ever, in focusing on these issues and, perhaps, because of the relative novelty ofthe subject in the context of management, little attention has been paid to thevarious theoretical positions, problems and possibilities evident in this literature (seeAbrahamson, 1996; Grint, 1997; Thomas, 2003).

DOI: 10.1177/1350507604043023

Management LearningCopyright © 2004 Sage Publications

London, Thousand Oaks, CAand New Delhi

www.sagepublications.comVol. 35(2): 155–179

1350–5076

at Vrije Universiteit Bibliotheek on March 29, 2016mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

www.sagepublications.com

http://mlq.sagepub.com/

This neglect might seem surprising as there is a long tradition of studying thecreation, diffusion,1 application, adaptation, abandonment and rejection of ideasand practices. In particular, the related, but distinct, fields of innovation (e.g. seeRogers, 1995; Tidd, 2001) and, of course, learning (e.g. Dierkes et al., 2001;Nonaka and Nishiguchi, 2001) demonstrate influences from a very wide range ofdisciplines (see also Fox, 1994a, b). These traditions and influences still havemuch to offer the emergent field of ‘management ideas’. Indeed, we shall see howthere are some areas of overlap, in relation to the embeddedness of knowledge forexample. However, the reverse also holds. In particular, until recently, the field ofmanagement learning has not fully engaged with the literature on the adoption ofmanagement ideas (see Giroux and Taylor, 2002; Antal and Krebsbach-Gnath,2001). This relatively new area may then be naı̈ve in certain respects, re-inventingthe wheels of innovation and learning, but collectively it may also offer insightsfrom other theoretical traditions, especially developments in social theory andorganizational studies. It is hoped that this article will go some way in doing this byoutlining, evaluating and developing the main theoretical perspectives used toexplain why management ideas and practices are adopted. Also, tensions andpossibilities for integration and multiple approaches to research are explored,especially by drawing on recent critiques of managerial rationality.

First, it is important to clarify the particular approach and focus adopted here.Attention will be directed to what might be considered as contextual or motivationaldimensions of learning processes. In addition, the focus is on the adoption of ideasand practices rather than the broader term of knowledge. The latter is notoriouslydifficult to pin down and encompasses much more than the explicit or embrainedand encoded forms which are the main concern here (see e.g. Blackler, 1995).However, conceptual difficulties remain. For example, there is a long tradition ofstudy and reflection regarding the relationship between ideas and practices, wordsand deeds, mind and body, some of which shows that ideas (and words) can beseen as not simply representing, facilitating or informing practices, but constitut-ing them (e.g. Gronn, 1983). Nevertheless and more generally, the distinctionretains some value (e.g. Argyris and Schon, 1974; Sturdy and Fleming, 2003) and isa key theme in some of the literature (e.g. Kostova and Roth, 2002). For example,within most management disciplines, there is a concern to identify whether aparticular approach (e.g. empowerment, market segmentation) has really been im-plemented or whether firms are engaging in ‘mere’ rhetoric (e.g. Appelbaum andBatt, 1994). Although such studies pose new problems, such as developing appro-priate methodologies to identify ‘real’ implementation and neglecting ways in whichpractices are transformed, they provide an important empirical contribution.

Constructing and reviewing a field of literature and boundaries within it involveschoices and assumptions about what is important. Despite the appearance andrhetoric of objectivity, for example, this article is based on a broadly sociologicaland academic view of the world—management learning as a ‘kind of sociology ofmanagement knowledge’ (Fox, 1994b: 586). It is a form of ordering andprivileging which is necessarily limiting and silencing as well as, hopefully,productive and insightful. Indeed, the article proceeds by building up and thenbreaking down divisions with this in mind. One ordering option was to explorecommon empirical themes. The transience (or longevity) of ideas, for instance, canbe explored at different levels of analysis—from the individual manager and idea

156 Management Learning 35(2)



to the economic and social system (e.g. Huczynski, 1993). Others examineparticular diffusion channels such as gurus (Jackson, 2001), consultancy (Clark,1995) books and newspapers (Furusten, 1999; Mazza and Alvarez, 2000), businessschools and universities (Sturdy and Gabriel, 2000), multinational companies(Kostova and Roth, 2002), joint ventures (Child and Rodrigues, 1996), non-governmental organizations (Bierstecker, 1995) or professional associations(Robertson et al., 1996). Similarly, different ideas and practices are examined (seeCollins, 2000) such as BPR (Grint, 1994), entrepreneurialism (Alvarez, 1996),‘green’ management (Fineman, 2001) or in terms of groups of fads andinnovations (Carson et al., 2000). These may inform a concern with processes suchas the hybridization of ideas (Botti, 1998), Japanization (Lillrank, 1995), American-ization (Djelic, 1998), globalization (Smith and Meiksins, 1995) or neo-imperialism(Chanlat, 1996) or inform prescriptions for adoption (Gibson and Tesone, 2001).

Such an empirical approach, however, would not readily address the generalfailure in this literature to reflect on underlying assumptions and alternative waysof understanding. Theory is either hidden, partial or partisan, with little recogni-tion of analytical strengths and weaknesses, and therefore limited scope fortheoretical development. Organizing the field according to broad theoreticalperspectives, however, poses its own particular problems. First, and as alreadyintimated, the boundaries of a field are highly permeable. Second, the allocationof labels is somewhat arbitrary. It may draw attention to core assumptions andproblematics, but also combine approaches with conflicting ontological positions(e.g. Marxism and post-structuralism as ‘political’). Third, studies rarely adopt asingle or coherent perspective in practice.

In recognition of these problems, the chosen approach is to adopt a classifica-tion that is hopefully meaningful, empirically and theoretically,2 and to exploretheoretical tensions as well as the scope for integration and development,particularly in relation to rational–socio-psychological distinctions. The article isorganized in the following way. First, six key ‘contextual’ contemporaryperspectives—rational, psychodynamic, dramaturgical, political, cultural andinstitutional—are outlined and evaluated. These are then mapped out and thepossibility and problematics of multiple and integrative theoretical approaches andfurther research are discussed.

The Rational View

The answer to the question of why ‘new’ ideas are adopted may seem quitesimple—because they work or promise to do so. In the latter case, they can still beevaluated subsequently and adopted more widely or discarded as appropriate(Burns and Wholey, 1993). For example, one might imagine that a solution will besought in response to a particular ‘crisis’ (see Ramsay, 1996). Such a process hasbeen identified at the macro level of the (US) economy whereby dominant ideas(if not practices) in managing employees coincide with economic cycles or longwaves (Barley and Kunda, 1992). However, more generally, the rational view isassociated with individuals and echoes established models of decision making,although the parallel is not always recognized (see Salaman, 2002). Rogers (1983)for example, sets out an ideal/typical innovation process which begins with a

Sturdy: The Adoption of Management Ideas and Practices 157



problem, leads to a search for matching solutions and is followed by evaluationand feedback. Such a process forms the basis of standard project managementprescriptions for innovation and training for example (see Tidd, 2001; Phillips,2000) and, to some, ensures success, such as in relation to using consultants. ‘It isdifficult to do good consultancy for a bad client, and difficult to do badconsultancy for a good client’ (Cabinet Office, 1994: ii).

The rational view is also reflected in student demands for proven techniquesand in the numerous studies that seek to confirm (i.e. promote) a causal linkbetween a management practice and organizational performance (e.g. Huselid,1995; see Staw and Epstein, 2000). Indeed, this concern has now extended to thecompetitive value of organizational knowledge and learning more generally (seeMcEvily and Chakravarthy, 2002).

Some studies suggest that rational practices of idea selection and evaluation areevident in organizations and even increasingly so. For example in regulatedenvironments, especially the public sector, and ‘development’ contexts they havebecome mandatory or institutionalized (Arthur and Preston, 1996; National AuditOffice, 2001). More generally, as scepticism and awareness of the dangers ofmanagement faddism (e.g. disruption) grow and capital becomes more ‘impatient’(Sennett, 1998; Ramsay, 1996), identifying ‘bottom line’ impacts has increased(Beer and Nohria, 2000). Furthermore, even some suppliers of new ideas arepromoting evaluation in an attempt to develop longer term relationships withclients and/or earnings as a percentage of identified benefits—from ‘activity toresults-based’ consulting (Phillips, 2000; see Kipping, 2002).

To a greater or lesser extent, even those who prescribe rational approachesrecognize some of the limitations. Echoing long established critiques of manage-rial decision making, rationality is, at best, ‘bounded’ (March and Simon, 1958; seeStrang and Macy, 2001). In particular, specifying the nature of a problem andobjectives is often problematic and the impact/success of practices or inter-ventions is notoriously difficult to isolate (e.g. Wood, 1999). Furthermore,behaving in apparently rational ways can have unintended and counterproductiveconsequences, such as inspection overload, reduced trust, simplification of activ-ities (in order to be measurable), focusing only on the measurable, and increasedcosts (see Power, 1997).

A recognition of some of these limitations may lead to more consideredprescriptions, pragmatic approaches and contingent explanations. For example,seeking tenders from consultants or drawing on social capital to ensure trust inrelationships are seen as substitutes for more rigorous methods (Gluckler andArmbruster, 2003). Similarly, the cost of fully evaluating new practices makes itappropriate only in larger organizations or for innovations of high cost anduncertainty (Phillips, 2000). However, Abrahamson (1991), following Simon(1960) argues that the opposite occurs—the ‘efficient choice’ (i.e. rational)approach is most applicable to explaining adoption in conditions of low un-certainty, which are comparatively rare in management (Salaman, 2002).

Research on this subject is very limited. Nevertheless, and perhaps not surpris-ingly in the context of management, some writers retain an albeit measured faithin the possibility and value of rational action—managers can indeed get ‘beyondthe hype’ and develop effective and lasting solutions (Eccles and Nohria, 1992;Nohria et al., 2003). For example, even Abrahamson argues that evaluation




techniques can provide some ‘immunity’ from other social and psychologicalpressures (1991; see also 1996; Carson et al., 2000). Presumably, the hope wouldbe that the apparent absence of a link, let alone a causal relationship, between theuse of popular management ideas and corporate financial performance couldthen be rectified (Staw and Epstein, 2000).3 As we shall see, others are seeminglyfar more sceptical about the possibility of rational management except in so far asit is used to justify and legitimate political and/or emotional concerns and hidechaos, intuition, impulse, equivocality and hypocrisy (e.g. Collins, 2000). However,as Salaman (2002) argues, much of this literature implicitly adopts a rationalapproach by seeing its absence as a problem to be explained; that is, why domanagers seem to adopt flawed (or unproven) ideas enthusiastically? We shallreturn to this paradoxical situation after exploring some ‘alternatives’ to therational view.

The Psychodynamic View

In contrast to the image of the manager in the rational view, as purposive,methodical and cognitive, psychodynamic perspectives point to underlying anxi-eties and yearnings and a corresponding ‘need’ for a potentially comforting senseof order and identity and/or control. Positions vary in terms of references tospecific psychoanalytic concepts or a more general concern with existentialanxiety. However, the perspective is typically associated with emotionally informed(‘charged’), sometimes impulsive, decisions to adopt, often simplistic and rationalideas without serious attention being given to their likely effectiveness for theorganization (Jackall, 1988). Gill and Whittle (1992) for example refer to ‘fight/flight’ where survival rests on destroying or evading the ‘enemy’ (i.e. competitors)and to ‘dependency’ on an all-powerful leader (i.e. guru or idea) who is beyondcriticism. Others point to competing psycho-social processes such as an existentialinterest in both autonomy and belonging so that, paradoxically, managers want ‘tobe seen to be using some new technique both before and at the same time aseveryone else’, respectively (Huczynski, 1993: 187). Such anxiety does not pre-clude apparently rational managerial behaviour however, in that this too holds thepromise of providing a sense of security, order and identity (Scarbrough andCorbett, 1992; Power, 1997). Indeed, managers may often recognize the promiseof a sense of reassurance provided by strategic planning for example (e.g. Watson,1994).

Psychodynamics is often drawn on to help account for the transience ofmanagement ideas in that they are adopted without consideration of effectivenessand soon discarded as they fail to deliver either organizational renewal orexistential security. However, positions vary as to the extent to which this can beaddressed. Many observers relate managerial anxieties to particular, cultural (e.g.individualism), organizational (e.g. hierarchy), personality (e.g. self-confidence)and, in particular, economic (e.g. competition) contexts (Gill and Whittle, 1992;Jackall, 1988). This implies that it is primarily a social phenomenon which istherefore open to being modified. The problem of impulsiveness and short-termism, for example, might be lessened by changing organizational and owner-ship structures and recruitment, development and reward systems or, as noted,




practices to provide some ‘immunity’ against ‘psychosocial vulnerabilities’(Abrahamson, 1991, 1996). However, others see such dynamics differently, as morefirmly embedded in capitalism and/or as universal and natural and therefore notreadily amenable to resolution (Sturdy, 1997; Jackson, 2001).

Psychodynamics has been highly influential, not least because it is evident inmany media accounts of management gurus and faddism and because of itschallenge to the rational view. However, it has also become a focus of critique,principally for its portrayal of managers—so anxious and under pressure that theywill adopt almost anything, especially if others are doing so (Thomas, 1993;Fincham, 1999). Such a critique is often valid, but it is partial. It is not onlymanagers who experience anxiety, and securing a sense of identity is not passive orpathological behaviour. As we shall see, managers are often active and tactical inthe production and transformation of ideas (Benders and van Veen, 2001) and/orincreasingly cynical of them (Alvarez and Cormas, 2001). This does not mean thatthere are not still pressures to adopt or to secure a sense of self through them, as‘progressive’ for example, but ambivalence is a more likely outcome (Kunda,1991). Such critiques are important in de-pathologizing the psychodynamicapproach even if a tendency towards essentialism and the neglect of contextualspecificity remains.

The Dramaturgical View (Rhetoric)

The rational and psychodynamic perspectives focus on managerial demands forsolutions and identity/security. By contrast, the dramaturgical view focuses on thesupply side of the relationship, on the persuasive power of agents such as gurus,consultants, academics, trainers, authors—their charisma and (verbal and non-verbal) presentation techniques. Such an emphasis could draw on a wide range ofliterature, such as that of training, communication, and attitude change forexample (e.g. Festinger, 1957; Guirdham, 1999; Buckley and Caple, 1995), or morepolitical approaches such as the sociology of translation (e.g. Callon, 1986), andwould benefit from doing so. However, typically authors draw on concepts ofrhetoric and social interaction as drama—dramaturgy (Goffman, 1974). Overall,impression management is key, not content, although ‘the content (i.e. packaging)is itself part of the performance’ (Grint, 1997: 733).

The term ‘rhetoric’ is typically contrasted with reality or truth—‘mererhetoric’—and this view persists in the business media and rationalist literature—‘rhetoric is rarely appropriate or necessary in business’ (Markham, 1997: 163).Others are more circumspect or dismissive of the distinction depending on theirontological positions. Fineman and Gabriel for example, in their study of therhetoric in OB textbooks, suggest that it ‘grows out of the recognition thatlanguage does not simply reflect reality, but constitutes it’ (1994: 377). In this viewthen, adopting new ideas from books or personal interaction for example can beachieved discursively (see Ford and Ford, 1995; Watson, 1995). This is seen bysome as particularly true in management, given its communication-intensive andespecially ambiguous nature (Kieser, 1997). Knowledge becomes ‘credible stories’(Alvesson, 1993).




From across the range of these perspectives, a whole host of rhetorical practicesor techniques have been identified and connected to different agents and ideas(e.g. see Cleverley, 1971; Clark and Greatbatch, 2002). Many, like Huczynski(1993), start with Aristotle’s three core elements of rhetoric—source credibility,emotional appeal and logical proof—while others, like Jackson (2002), adopt amore explicitly psychodynamic approach. Relatedly, but at a more basic level, ideasare associated with different types of benefit (e.g. universal, organizational andpersonal) and/or threat such as the violent rhetoric of BPR (Grint and Case,1998). At the same time, rhetorical forms are contrasted, such as those used bygurus and consultants—‘persuasion as charisma and technique’ (Fincham, 2002:194; Senge and Lim, 1997)—although attention is rarely given to the varyinginterests of the audience, such as different levels of management for example.

Revealing such practices does shed some light on how and why ideas areadopted. However and whatever the claimed importance attached to interaction,as long as the focus remains almost exclusively on the persuasive strategies ofpromoters, other agents, especially the ‘audience’, are rendered distorted, obscureor invisible (see Watson, 1995). Recipients are, of course, partially revealedthrough rhetoric (Atkinson, 1984) and in a sense the dramaturgical approachcombines all the other ‘demand’ perspectives on adoption. However, it is typicallyan implicit, assumed and generalized picture of recipients which, given thetendency to focus on successful rhetoric, once again gives rise to the conception ofthem as the victims of the clever tricks of organizational ‘witchdoctors’ (Micklewaitand Wooldridge, 1996). Moreover, it reinforces the dominant view of a top-downknowledge diffusion process, rather than one based on interaction, contestationand transformation (see Giroux and Taylor, 2002; Sturdy, 2002). Indeed, moregenerally, rhetorical analyses from different (e.g. interactionist) perspectivesneglect broader issues of power (see Grint and Case, 1998). Management ideas arenot simply ways of talking and thinking, but legitimate, represent and/orconstitute particular (e.g. capitalist, patriarchal, western and contradictory) formsof work organization while silencing others (e.g. Parker, 2002). Furthermore, theimmediate cultural context is also often obscured from view. By contrast, as weshall see, other studies are more sensitive to these issues.

The Political View(s)

Given the managerialist nature of much of the literature and the relatedpopularity of interactionist and psychodynamic perspectives, more critical andpolitical approaches are less visible, but they are perhaps more varied. Broadlyspeaking, they are concerned with the instrumental use of ideas to secure powerand/or with their content in terms of their material and/or discursive powereffects. Of course, these issues reflect longstanding concerns with managementpolitics and ideology as well as more recent critical interest in discourse analysis(Bendix, 1956; Braverman, 1974; Pettigrew, 1985; Rose, 1989), but some relatemore specifically to patterns and practices of adoption (e.g. Ramsay, 1977;Thomas, 2003).

At a basic level, however good the rhetoric, which ideas and practices arediffused depends in part on who has control of the means of dissemination. The




role of large and multinational organizations, including those in the media,consultancy, ‘development’ and education areas, is crucial and this typicallyinvolves an asymmetrical economic relationship. Notwithstanding the often flawedassumptions of a causal relationship between specific management practices andeconomic success and of the possibility of transferability, ideas flow mostly fromthe powerful (see Smith and Meiksins, 1995). This means that, currently, it ismostly western, especially US and neo-liberal, ideas that are spread, or at leastpromoted (Kostera, 1995; Chanlat, 1996; Locke, 1989). At a different level,asymmetrical economic power is evident in most organization–subsidiary, jointventure and supply relations and this shapes levels of diffusion and resistance.Child and Rodrigues (1996), for example, link power relations with varyinglearning outcomes—behavioural and cognitive. Similarly and as we shall see inrelation to institutions, within a particular firm, sector or society, agents withsymbolic and/or regulatory as well as economic power are crucial gatekeepers ofdiffusion (e.g. business elites, professions, governments) (Guillen, 1994; Buchananand Badham, 1999).

Historically, the continuing creation and spread of management ideas such as,say, human relations and strategy has been seen by some to serve an ideologicalrole for management as a function and group, in justifying and explaining ‘boththe way in which work is managed and, indeed, the fact that it is managed—byothers’ (Hales, 1993: 68). The emergence and dominance of particular manage-ment ideas can also be seen in terms of competition between different manage-ment functions or occupations, both generally and within individual organizations,as they compete for dominance and status (e.g. accountants, marketers, etc.)(Armstrong, 1986; Whittington and Whipp, 1992). Similarly, ideas are sought,adopted and/or championed by particular individuals to support/defend theircareer interests, even if they recognize that the idea may be flawed (see Watson,1994). More generally, Grint (1997), using Veblen’s ideas, argues that high statusgroups in consumer societies (such as management) adopt consumption patternsto distance themselves from others and so seek to ‘move on’ when fashionsbecome too popular—a ‘distancing’ perspective (see also Carter and Crowther,2000).

Whatever the claimed or apparent motives for adoption, it is clear thatmanagement ideas and practices are powerful in that they reflect and prescribeparticular (e.g. western, masculine) (Wilson, 1996; Sinclair, 1997) ways of thinkingand acting and silence others (Grey, 1999; Parker, 2002). This has been anincreasing focus of study arising out of the view of power as an effect, rather than acommodity/possession, achieved through various actor-networks (Bloomfield andBest, 1992) or discourses (Bernstein, 1990). For example, Rose (1989) shows howpsychological concepts such as attitude, personality and group were used to‘govern’ populations and came to transform our very sense of ourselves—how wethink, feel and learn (see also Hollway, 1991). More recently, strategic, enterpriseand emotion discourses have come to the fore (Knights and Morgan, 1991; du Gayand Salaman, 1992; Fineman, 2000), but an echo of earlier realist studies ofideology often remains (e.g. Salaman, 2002; Thomas, 2003).

Unlike the other perspectives discussed so far, the political view highlights howideas and practices and the means of dissemination are contested. This is, ofcourse, relatively well documented in relation to the need to secure alliances and




dependencies in organizational change programmes (e.g. Buchanan and Badham,1999) and to labour and levels of commitment or behavioural compliance, forexample (e.g. Edwards et al., 1998). However, new ideas and practices and theagents who help introduce them can pose a threat to managerial identities ascompetent as well as to their individual and functional power—‘empowerment’and middle-managers for example (Scarbrough and Burrell, 1996). This threat iswell illustrated in a quote from a manager about consultants cited by Sturdy (1997:403)—‘I like working with consultants (provided that they report to me and notmy boss!!)’. This highlights the potential for variability in explaining the adoptionof ideas and the different barriers, beyond those associated with ‘technically’flawed implementation and resistance to change (Ramsay, 1996).

Indeed, more radical perspectives point to underlying and persistent tensions inorganizations—the system effects of capitalist employment relations, for example(Smith and Meiksins, 1995). Here, resistance does not simply reflect a barrier tothe adoption of ideas, but serves as a stimulus to it as well (see also Beech et al.,2002). Ramsay (1977), for example, argued that various forms of employeeparticipation have emerged dialectically, at times when management control ischallenged by labour. For some, such patterns are inevitable since managementideas/practices aimed at securing the control of employees are likely to fail orcreate new difficulties as they treat the symptoms not the cause of problems (Edwards,1979; Marglin, 1979).

Others, however, present such tensions not so much in political terms but moreas dilemmas of organizational design, such as degrees of centralization (Abra-hamson, 1996) or as being context specific rather than cyclical (Guillen, 1994).Indeed, most political perspectives tend to generalize the processes of adoption,focusing on structured interests and outcomes (see Giroux and Taylor, 2002)rather than context—historical and social, time and place—or ‘relevance’. Why,for example, do some ideas spread while others do not or do so in a different timeand sequence? Such questions are the focus of cultural and, in particular,institutional perspectives to which we now turn.

The Cultural View

The spread of management ideas and practices across cultures has long been aconcern of international business and, more recently, studies of globalization andmanagement learning. However, culture tends to be neglected in national, sectoraland organizational diffusion research. This is surprising given that, beyond theUSA, much diffusion is effectively cross-national or ‘Americanization’. Further-more, culture is evident at multiple levels within and between organizations as isevident in diffusion associated with organizational mergers (Cartwright andCooper, 1996) as well as sectoral, occupational or gender cultures, for example(Parker, 1995; du Gay, 1996). In essence, the cultural view draws attention to thelocally embedded nature of knowledge such that culture can act as a bridge orbarrier to transfer. Thus, to a greater extent than other perspectives, it isconcerned with the nature or particular form of management ideas and practices.So, for example, the idea of empowerment may be presumed to spread morereadily in individualistic and egalitarian cultures and require adaptation elsewhere




(Fan, 1998; Bhagat et al., 2002), although some see ideas and practices as varyingin their inherent transferability—compare the assembly line and emotionalintelligence, for example (e.g. Tayeb, 1996; see Czarniawska and Sevon, 1996).Similarly, the methods through which new ideas are introduced and learned areconsidered culture-specific (e.g. Warner, 1991).

Stories and stereotypes abound of the culture clashes that constrain cross-national communication whether in terms of specific practices (Guirdham, 1999)or broad ethnocentric categories (Hofstede, 1980). The perspective is illustratedwell in studies of diffusion through international joint ventures where, for many,the dominant barrier is national or regional cultural incompatibilities betweenpartners. For example, and in direct contrast to the political view, Lam argues that‘many of the problems lie not in structural barriers’, but in the ‘socially embeddednature’ of the knowledge transferred (1997: 974–5; see also Bhagat et al., 2002).Similarly, cross-cultural sensitivity and language skills through training and recruit-ment are prescribed as a managerial route to success (e.g. Richards, 1997;Villinger, 1996; Cyr and Schneider, 1996).

However, others offer more nuanced analyses (Simon and Davies, 1996). Forexample, Child and Rodrigues (1996) point to cultural (social identity) pluralityand fluidity within organizations and to the possibility of connections as well asclashes in knowledge transfer. Others show how it is not so much a question ofcompatibility between ideas and context but resonance, as innovation implies somechallenge to existing arrangements (Butler, 1986). Moreover, in certain contexts,ideas and practices are attractive precisely because they are alien or, moreprecisely, Japanese or North American. However, this ‘dominance effect’ (Smithand Meiksins, 1995) is often neglected in the cultural view, perhaps because itpoliticizes diffusion—as progress or neo-imperialism (Kostera, 1995)? Beyondincreasing cultural training and awareness and making minor adaptations to ideasand dissemination methods, addressing other possible obstacles and facilitators todiffusion such as control relations is not considered (Sturdy, 2001). Such alimitation is addressed in part by the more inclusive institutional perspectivealthough, as we shall see, this shares other weaknesses with the cultural view.

The Institutional View

Institutional theory has become dominant in organizational studies. It demon-strates various societal or social influences on organizational practices—theirinstitutional ‘embeddedness’ (Tolbert and Zucker, 1996). Its ‘central tenet’ is that‘organizations sharing the same environment will employ similar practices’ (i.e.isomorphism) (Kostova and Roth, 2002: 215) and, like other perspectives, itpresents a challenge to the rational view (Strang and Macy, 2001). Practices areadopted for symbolic reasons—seeking peer and shareholder legitimacy—ratherthan, or even regardless of, efficiency or control outcomes (Whittington, 1992:707). However, both factors are often recognized with institutions either mediatingor constructing economic criteria (e.g. Bierstecker, 1995; Whitley, 1992). Moreo-ver, securing legitimacy from institutional sources can have economic con-sequences in terms of share prices and CEO salaries, for example (Staw andEpstein, 2000).




In giving primacy to social context, institutional approaches are concerned withvariety as well as homogeneity in that they show how the spread of ideas andpractices occurs differently in terms of time, sequence, context (e.g. region, state,sector or ‘field’) and extent. It is thus an important counter to notions ofconvergence (Whitley, 1994) or cyclical trends (see Barley and Kunda, 1992). Forexample, Guillen’s classic study (1994) compared the spread of key streams ofmanagement thought (e.g. scientific management) historically in different coun-tries. Here, in parallel with the rational view, organizational ‘problems’ areexperienced by managers, but adoption is shaped by institutional factors, such asthe ‘mentality’ of local business elites (e.g. humanism); role of professional andeducational groups and networks, and of state bodies (e.g. regulators); andemployee responses and industrial relations systems (see also Alvarez, 1996;Abrahamson and Rosenkopf, 1997).

Variability in institutional conditions is seen to account for different levels, aswell as patterns, of adoption. Guillen for example, distinguishes between theideologies and techniques associated with particular management approaches andargues that either can be adopted independently. In the case of human relationsin Spain, for instance, its ideology was adopted by both business elites andpractitioners, but it was not widely practised (1994). Similarly, practices may beadopted, but largely in a ‘ceremonial’ way, in compliance with regulation forexample (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Kostova and Roth, 2002). Such distinctions areuseful, but fail to account fully for the ways in which ideas and practices areadapted to local contexts and interests within organizations and networks (seeRobertson et al., 1996). Indeed, there tends to be an emphasis on the differentgroups and ‘carriers’ involved and how they shape the diffusion process, ratherthan on the ideas and practices (Thomas, 2003; see Botti, 1998).

Contrary to a number of criticisms, this has been a focus in innovation diffusionresearch and elsewhere. Rogers (1995), for example, talks of quite substantialchanges as ‘reinvention’ although there is a range of forms of selective appropria-tion (see Clark, 1987) or combination of ideas into hybrids (Botti, 1998; Ezzamelet al., 1994). In addition and in response to some of the criticisms of institutionalapproaches, a ‘Scandinavian institutionalism’ has emerged (quietly), which recog-nizes and explores change as well as stability, in terms of both ideas and their de-/institutionalization (e.g. Rovik, 1996). For example, in a largely neglected, butimportant, work, Czarniawska and Joerges (1996) see organizational change interms of the ‘travels’ and materialization of ideas—transformed into relativelydisembedded ‘quasi-objects’ (e.g. labels and 2×2 matrices) and sometimes em-bedded and transformed as actions, objects and institutions (see also Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall, 2003).

This gives primacy over ideas and practices to the role of different actors such astrainers, publishers, teachers, consultants and managers who package, translateand sustain them, as well as to material (non-human) actors such as IT. Whileothers have examined this (e.g. Huczynski, 1993), the emphasis here derives fromthe influence of actor-network theory (‘translation’), which also focuses on howactors are themselves translated (Law, 1992). Although in many ways (e.g.ontologically) quite distinct from institutional theory (see Latour, 1986; Lee andHassard, 1999), it has been influential in its development in exploring manage-ment ideas (e.g. Furusten, 1999) as well as more generally (Giroux and Taylor,




2002) and in its own right (Collins, 2000; Doorewaard and van Bistjerveld, 2001;Bloomfield and Best, 1992).

Despite these developments and its dominance, institutional theory has beensubject to criticism (Wilkinson, 1996). Firstly, broader power dynamics areunderplayed or taken for granted (Smith and Meiksins, 1995). As alreadyintimated, new practices can be imposed without widespread institutional orcultural resonance or are subject to resistance which partly transcends the localcontext—the ‘dull compulsion’ of economic relations (Sturdy, 2001). Moreover,value systems (e.g. Confucian beliefs in Japan) may not so much determineorganizational practices or their transfer, but used tactically to legitimate economicmotives (i.e. ideological control) (Dore, 1973; Littler, 1982). However, thiscriticism simply replaces one form of determinism (socio-cultural) with another(economic). Institutional theory tends to aggregate, ignoring ‘eclectic’companies/nations which do not fit the institutionally shaped pattern of thesector/region (Oliver, 1992; Clark and Mueller, 1996). While there has been someattempt to incorporate a concept of human agency into analysis to account fordiversity and change within a local context (e.g. Hung and Whittington, 1997;Whitley and Kristensen, 1996), criticisms remain relevant (e.g. Thomas, 2003).Indeed and as we shall see in the following discussion, the scope for integratingperspectives is limited.

Discussion and Conclusion—Rational and/or Emotional?

Following this analysis, we are now in a position to draw together some theoreticalproblems and possibilities in researching the adoption of management ideas andpractices. We have seen how the rational view dominates prescriptive accounts aswell as providing a point of departure for others. It draws attention to thecognitive and evaluative nature of managerial processes and has become especiallyrelevant empirically as scepticism over fads and preoccupation with financialreturns from new practices have grown. However, there is some variation in theextent to which established critiques of rationality (as bounded) are acknowl-edged. Many writers retain a strong, utopian faith in the possibility of adoptingideas and practices on the basis of objective evaluation (see Ten Bos, 2000). Thisview is strongly countered by the psychodynamic approach, which opens upmanagerial impulsiveness and emotional and existential concerns. At its best, theseare presented as both firmly embedded and associated with managerial agency,rather than simply treatable pathologies of impotent actors. A similar problem isevident in the related dramaturgical perspective which, in focusing on the persua-sive powers of texts and speakers and the packaging of ideas, tends to presentmanagers as vulnerable or gullible and diffusion as a one-way and largelyuncontested process. However, it does serve to draw attention to the importance ofinteraction and of the discursively produced nature of much, if not all, manage-ment knowledge.

Managerial discourse also forms part of what has been described as the politicalview. Although heterogeneous, this is concerned with the value and outcomes ofmanagement ideas as well as the role, influence and transformation of differentmediators. Here, it is important to emphasize how power and, sometimes overt,




contestation are important stimuli to action, rather than simply obstacles to thediffusion of knowledge. Whether or not new ideas are seen in functionalist orideological terms as supporting particular class, organizational, occupational orindividual interests, it is clear that their emergence comes to shape how we act andfeel—power as an effect. In this sense, politics and culture come together,although the cultural perspective (along with some others) tends to eschew conceptsof power such as that of the employment relationship. Rather, emphasis is placedon the different forms of knowledge and learning and how their embedded natureserves as a barrier or, sometimes, a bridge to adoption. Although typicallyassociated with the field of international business, cultural issues are universallyrelevant, and not simply because most new ideas in management emerge fromthe USA. Sensitive accounts recognize the plurality and fluidity of cultures at theorganizational level, for example, even if there is a tendency to underestimate thestructural nature of diffusion. This weakness is less evident in the related anddominant institutional approach, where the role of regulation and labour relationsand markets for example are seen as important. More generally, in yet anothercounter to the rational view, it focuses on organizations securing legitimacythrough new ideas and recognizes variability in the depth and breadth ofadoption. This allows for useful comparative and historical analyses, but variationwithin particular contexts (i.e. managerial agency) and, until recently at least, thefragility and translation of ideas and actors, are not always adequately explained.

At the risk of simplification, the different perspectives can be reduced todifferent factors—organizational effectiveness; relieving anxiety and securing iden-tity; successful rhetoric; furthering career, function, status or control; culturalresonance or meaning; and securing organizational legitimacy. Not surprisingly,these connect to various experiential dimensions of management more generally(see Hales, 1993; Watson, 1996). Indeed, this was the intention—a motivationalcontext for management learning. Moreover, some approaches to diffusion usedifferent levels of analysis which are sometimes quite removed from the manage-rial agent—what Grint refers to as ‘external’ perspectives (1997). For example,reference has been made to macroeconomic cycles of innovation and to institu-tional contexts. Similarly, an alternative approach, and one with a long tradition ininnovation (see Rogers, 1995), is to account for adoption at the level of the firm—‘organizational innovativeness’. Here, various characteristics are identified whichexplain, or at least signal, innovative firms (or societies) (Weinstein and Kochan,1995; Whitley, 2000). Clearly, despite the level of analysis, such an approach givesrise to practical implications for managing innovation (Tidd, 2001; Wolfe, 1994)that have been developed with some intensity in recent years in the broadercontext of knowledge management and the management of learning, particularlyin relation to the value of networks, for example (e.g. Brown and Duguid, 2001;Swan et al., 2002). The adoption of ideas has itself become an adopted idea.

Aside from the value of giving voice to and evaluating the range of availableperspectives, which has been otherwise ignored, and the potential heuristic utility(and obstacle) of categorization, how can the identified approaches be developed?What are the possibilities for, and desirability of, theoretical integration, forexample? Clearly, theoretical perspectives are largely a matter of choice, foundedon prior assumptions for example. However, within certain constraints, they mayalso be deployed according to their empirical relevance. Hopefully, it is clear from




this discussion that each approach provides insight into why managers adopt ideasand practices. Therefore, one might intuitively seek to identify the relativesignificance of different factors in any given case of adoption. Was it more a caseof securing legitimacy and clever rhetoric than systematic evaluation, for example?In other words, there are not only different perspectives, but individually, they arelimited. This is perhaps not surprising, as most people would concede that theadoption of ideas is multidimensional4—managers may adopt ideas on the basis ofboth systematic evaluation and social influence, for example (Abrahamson andRosenkopf, 1993). Indeed, many studies combine different approaches, oftenimplicitly, especially where the focus is on particular aspects of diffusion such astransience, channels or innovativeness.

A more conscious, but unusual use of multiple perspectives is achieved througha contingent approach, whereby different accounts of adoption are seen asappropriate depending on the circumstances (see also Van de Ven and Poole,1995). For example, we have noted how Abrahamson regards the rational view asmore appropriate in situations of low uncertainty (1991; see also Ramsay, 1996),although Tolbert and Zucker (1983) argue that early adopters may be morerational than the ‘herds’ of followers. Similarly, Child and Rodrigues (1996) pointto different power (resource) and social relationships between joint venturepartners and the extent to which these shape the type of adoption. Clearly, and inkeeping with contingent approaches generally, one might add a whole host offactors, such as levels of management or types of knowledge, and perhaps gainsome insight from doing so. For example, managers in a position or at a levelwhere they will be held responsible for implementation, or those in quantitativefunctional cultures, for example, might be more inclined to attempt systematicevaluation. However, and again in parallel with the contingency view of organiza-tional practices, the result is, paradoxically, ever increasing complexity and a vainsearch for predictability (e.g. Wood, 1979) (see Table 1). Moreover, and as we shallsee, although the approaches are not always mutually exclusive, they are not simplyequivalent nor necessarily commensurable.

There is neither the scope nor the need to examine the issue of commensurabil-ity (Burrell and Morgan, 1979) and subsequent debates in organizational studieshere. There are, for example, not only tensions between the different approaches,but within them as well. For example, essentialism and/or realism in psychody-

Table 1 An assessment of theoretical perspectives on the adoption of ideas and practicesa

Perspective Reason Strength Weakness

Rational Effective for organization Prescriptive IdealisticPsychodynamic Anxiety/identity Emotion focus EssentialismDramaturgical Rhetoric Integrative Mono-directionalPolitical Interests/effects Critical FunctionalistCultural Fits values Contextual ApoliticalInstitutional Imposed/legitimation Comparative/integrative DeterministicMulti-dimensional Various Inclusive Non-integrativeContingency It depends Flexibility ‘Relativist’

Note:a In order to provide an overview and focus, the table necessarily contains some generalizations.




namics are incompatible with the constructivism of culturalist views, and thestructuralism of institutional theory cannot always be reconciled with discursiveapproaches (see Morgan and Sturdy, 2000). Similarly, and as already noted, variousconceptions of power comprise the political approach—as a potential or an effectfor instance. While such tensions are not always recognized in multidimensionalaccounts of adoption themes, we have already seen how some perspectives aremore integrative than others, partly as a result of theoretical development. Forexample, institutional approaches typically incorporate rational (economic), polit-ical and cultural themes (Grint, 1997) and even contextual aspects of subjectivityand discourse. Given the seemingly multidimensional nature of adoption, suchintegration is intuitively attractive. However, and as we have seen, the approach isnot without its limitations, even for those who are attracted to grand narratives.Nevertheless, there is a problematic distinction that remains, and runs through allthe main approaches discussed—that of the rational and non-rational. This isrevealed by more recent developments in social and organizational theory whichproblematize dualisms and categorization, but also open up new avenues forresearch into the adoption of ideas.

We have seen how five of the six identified perspectives provide an explicitcounter to the rational approach. Adoption is not based on a systematic assessmentof solutions to organizational problems, but on impulse, persuasion, power,cultural resonance and legitimation, or is subsumed within them. It also forms thebasis of the few available accounts of the literature—‘logic and emotion’ or‘rationality and contagion’ (Grint, 1997; Strang and Macy, 2001; see Salaman, 2002,emphasis added). As we shall see, not only is the separation problematicempirically, but it results in more fundamental theoretical problems as well as apathologizing of the ‘non-rational’ and, in some critical perspectives, an empiricalneglect of the ‘rational’ management of diffusion.

Given the modernist nature of management, it is not surprising that theseparation is evident in prescriptive, rationalist accounts or checklists warningmanagers of the dangers of following the latest fads and their promoters non-rationally (e.g. Gibson and Tesone, 2001; see Ten Bos, 2000). However, it is alsopresent in more sophisticated (modernist) academic analyses. For example,Abrahamson, in a highly influential article, presents the demand for newmanagement techniques as being shaped by a ‘competition’ between ‘technoeco-nomic forces’ and ‘sociopsychological vulnerabilities’ (1996: 274–5, original em-phasis). The former are considered real and the latter obstacles or the product ofsuperstition.

The plea then is not to passively watch sociopsychological forces shape technicallyinferior management fashions, but to act in a scientifically informed manner in order torender . . . fashion setting a more real, as opposed to superstitious learning process.(Abrahamson, 1996: 275)

By contrast, and as already intimated, other ‘critical’ perspectives see rationalityas ultimately unobtainable, other than as a legitimating smokescreen, psycho-logical ‘comfort blanket’, cultural ritual or rhetorical device, for example. Whilethis provides an important challenge to the rationalism of managerial prescrip-tions, it effectively dismisses rationality completely, hiding it from view. An




alternative approach is to see ‘technoeconomic’ forces and the ‘sociopsycho-logical’ as mutually constituting. Existential anxiety, for instance, can be seen as acondition and consequence of individualizing organizational and socio-economicstructures, not something that can be marginalized or ‘treated’ (Sturdy, 1997). Ata more general level, and as noted earlier, literature from the sociology of science(and knowledge) and actor-network theory in particular, has problematized therelated technical–social distinction (e.g. Latour, 1987; Bijker, 1995; Blackler, 1995).This is pursued not through reduction, but by exploring how it is constructed andsustained in networks of human and other ‘actants’. Indeed, this is evident withinthe research on the adoption of management ideas, even increasingly so (Bloom-field and Best, 1992; see also Giroux and Taylor, 2002).

Parallel debates in sociology and organization studies on dualisms (see Knights,1997; Reed, 1997) have also developed in relation to emotion and its relativeneglect in both fields. These challenge the conventional opposition betweenrationality and emotion, mind and body (Albrow, 1997; Fineman, 2000). Forexample, Barbalet (1998) compares the ‘critical’ position whereby emotion can beseen as a legitimate or alternative approach to rationality and a ‘radical’ position,adopted here, where the two are seen as continuous yet conceptually distinct.More straightforwardly, this can be seen in the notion that the pursuit of objectivityis also a ‘passion’ for objectivity—emotion is necessary for producing reliable (orother) knowledge (Williams and Bendelow, 1996: 151; Jaggar, 1989) as well asmaking decisions (Toda, 1980).

Unlike the theoretical challenges to the social–technical distinction, however,such perspectives have yet to be incorporated into the literature on the adoptionof management ideas and practices. What is missing therefore is a renewed focuson, and recognition of, ‘rational’ practices, such as the use of quantitativeevaluation techniques or less systematic practices, but one that presents them, notas an ideal or simply bounded, but as necessarily emotional (as well as cultural,political and institutionalized and rhetorical). This clearly requires a departurefrom the objectivism of the rational approach, as well as the reductionism of manyof the sociopsychological views, and does not remove all potential incompatibilitiesbetween perspectives. However, there are a number of possible theoretical andmethodological options to choose from, especially in the sociological stream oforganizational theory (Fineman, 2000; Sturdy, 2003).

For example, an ‘under-emotionalized’, but distinct, element of actor-networktheory explores the translation of human (as well as other) actants as innovationsare sustained. This has been developed elsewhere in relation to management ideasand the transformation of identities (e.g. Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996), butwould benefit from a ‘kind of’ emotional sociology of management knowledge (seeFox, 1994b). Indeed, and in keeping with the theoretical developments moregenerally, this would include the growing or renewed recognition of emotion asintegral to learning processes and outcomes (e.g. see Management Learning, 1997).Such approaches would help break down a core and limiting theoretical barrier inresearch on the adoption of ideas and give greater empirical recognition to therational (i.e. also emotional) practices adopted by managers in doing so (see alsoPower, 1997; Strang and Macy, 2001). In short, rationality is necessarily political,emotional, cultural, institutional and rhetorical, but not reducible to any of them.




Although rationality–emotionality is one of the most pressing and theoreticallyexciting areas of development, there is, of course, considerable scope for researchin other directions as well. Recent studies continue to claim that the area remainsbroadly under-developed (e.g. Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall, 2003) and theforegoing discussion has gone some way towards identifying a number of specificand general limitations, gaps and emerging themes. In the hope of stimulatingfurther research and by way of closing, four areas can be highlighted. First, and inkeeping with the impetus for this article, there is a need to break down some ofthe field barriers and to draw on insights available from established and emergingstudies of ideas and innovation from other academic disciplines, not least those ofmanagement learning. Second, relatedly and as intimated by the number andrange of references cited here, attention has been focused on the promotion andinitial adoption of ideas. Their implementation and impact are either ignored orstudied narrowly in relation to organizational change or within broader political orfunctional (e.g. HRM, marketing) domains. Furthermore, ideas and practices thatare abandoned and, in particular, those which fail to get widely disseminated andthe processes through which this occurs, would provide an important andinsightful corrective to the attention given to popular and sustained ideas.Moreover, such a focus might give greater emphasis to the partly random, chance,unplanned and ultimately unpredictable nature of such processes (Czarniawskaand Joerges, 1996; Thomas, 2003).

Third, and despite the recent attention elsewhere to knowledge managementand networks (‘co-production’), as well as the important contribution of theoriesof translation and interaction, a traditional tendency to view the ‘diffusion’ processas one-way and top-down remains. More research is needed on the constructionand appropriation of ideas and associated multiple and multidirectional inter-actions, such as those between and among management consultants and clients orstudents and teachers. Fourth, and relatedly, studies tend to rely on using a narrowrange of methods such as citation indices, texts and presentations and/or post hocaccounts from interviews. These fail to provide sufficient insight into the ongoingprocesses through which ideas, practices and other actors are produced, adopted,negotiated, translated, abandoned and/or rejected. In other words, they often donot address the very questions they set out to answer. Thus, despite the growth ofstudies on the adoption of management ideas and practices, there remain anumber of theoretical, empirical and methodological paths to explore.

Notes

Comments on an earlier draft of this article from Yiannis Gabriel, Harry Scarbrough, ChrisWright, Alex Klat-Smith and the anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. Thearticle is linked to research under the ESRC ‘Evolution of Business KnowledgeProgramme’—project number RES-334-25-0004.

1. The term diffusion has been rightly subject to criticism, notably from the perspective ofthe sociology of translation or actor-network theory, where the term ‘translation’ ispreferred. Essentially, diffusion is seen to imply that ideas have an initial inertia and thattheir subsequent transformation or obstruction are problems to be explained. Bycontrast, the term translation recognizes that the spread of ideas in time and space ‘is in




the hands of people’ with interests and it is ‘faithful transmission’ that most needs to beexplained (see Latour, 1986: 266–7). Despite this, diffusion is used here as a genericterm in keeping with the range of theories covered. Moreover, contrary to the critique,classic studies of diffusion do in fact incorporate the inevitable transformation or ‘re-invention’ of innovations, for example (e.g. Rogers, 1995; Clark, 1987).

2. The classification has been explored and refined through use with managerial researchparticipants and post-experience teaching.

3. Financial measures are, of course, only one indicator of performance outcomes ofinnovations (Tidd, 2001).

4. See for example the under-recognized work of Huczynski (1993), where a market modelof diffusion/ideas is adopted (see Sturdy and Gabriel, 2000; Thomas, 2003).

References

Abrahamson, E. (1991) ‘Managerial Fads and Fashions—The Diffusion and Rejection ofInnovations’, Academy of Management Review 16(3): 586–612.

Abrahamson, E. (1996) ‘Management Fashion’, Academy of Management Review 21(1):254–85.

Abrahamson, E. and Eisenman, M. (2001) ‘Why Management Scholars Must InterveneStrategically in the Management Knowledge Market’, Human Relations 54(1): 67–76.

Abrahamson, E. and Rosenkopf, L. (1993) ‘Institutional and Competitive Bandwagons—Using Mathematical Modeling as a Tool to Explore Innovation Diffusion’, Academy ofManagement Review 18: 487–517.

Abrahamson, E. and Rosenkopf, L. (1997) ‘Social Network Effects on the Extent ofInnovation Diffusion—A Computer Simulation’, Organization Science 8: 289–309.

Albrow, M. (1997) Do Organizations Have Feelings? London: Routledge.Alvarez, J.-L. (1996) ‘The International Popularization of Entrepreneurial Ideas’, in S. R.

Clegg and G. Palmer (eds) The Politics of Management Knowledge. London: Sage.Alvarez, J.-L. and Cormas, J. (2001) ‘Skeptically Eager Managers—Paradoxes of Media

Influences on Knowledge Consumption and Use’, Report 15, CEMP—The Creation ofEuropean Management Practice, IESE Barcelona, www.fek.uu.se/cemp/cemp.

Alvesson, M. (1993) ‘Organisations as Rhetoric: Knowledge Intensive Firms and theStruggle with Ambiguity’, Journal of Management Studies 30(6): 997–1019.

Antal, A. B. and Krebsbach-Gnath, C. (2001) ‘Consultants as Agents of OrganisationalLearning’, in M. Dierkes, A. Berthoin, J. Child and I. Nonaka (eds) Handbook ofOrganizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Appelbaum, E. and Batt, R. (1994) The New American Workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.Argyris, C. and Schon, D. A. (1974) Theory in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Armstrong, P. (1986) ‘Management Control Strategies and Inter-professional Competition’,

in D. Knights and H. Willmott (eds) Managing the Labour Process. Aldershot: Gower.Arthur, A. and Preston, R. (1996) Quality in Overseas Consultancy—Understanding the Issues.

London: British Council (Professional Services).Atkinson, J. M. (1984) Our Masters’ Voices. London: Routledge.Barbalet, J. M. (1998) Emotion, Social Theory and Social Structure—A Macro-sociological

Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Barley, S. R. and Kunda, G. (1992) ‘Design and Devotion: Surges of Rational and

Normative Ideologies of Control in Managerial Discourse’, Administrative Science Quarterly37: 363–99.

Beech, N., MacIntosh, R., MacLean, D., Shepherd, J. and Stokes, J. (2002) ‘ExploringConstraints on Developing Knowledge—On the Need for Conflict’, Management Learning33(4): 459–76.




Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000) Breaking the Code of Change. Boston: HBS Press. (SeeChapter 1)

Benders, J. and van Veen, K. (2001) ‘What’s in a Fashion? Interpretative Viability andManagement Fashions’, Organization 8(1): 33–53.

Bendix, R. (1956) Work and Authority in Industry: Ideologies of Management in the Course ofIndustrialization. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bernstein, B. (1990) The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse—Class Codes and Control, Vol. IV.London: Routledge.

Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D. and Triandis, H. C. (2002) ‘Cultural Variationsin the Cross-border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge—An Integrative Framework’,Academy of Management Review 27(2): 204–21.

Biersteker, T. J. (1995) ‘The Triumph of Liberal Economic Ideas in the Developing World’,in B. Stallings (ed.) Global Change—Regional Response. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Bijker, W. (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs—Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Blackler, F. (1995) ‘Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organisations—An Overview andInterpretation’, Organisation Studies 16(6): 1021–46.

Bloomfield, B. and Best, A. (1992) ‘Management Consultants: Systems Development, Powerand the Translation of Problems’, Sociological Review 40(3): 533–60.

Botti, H. F. (1998) ‘Going Local—The Hybridization Process as Situated Learning’, in J.-L.Alvarez (ed.) The Diffusion and Consumption of Business Knowledge. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (2001) ‘Knowledge and Organization—A Social Practice

Perspective’, Organization Science 12(2): 198–213.Buchanan, D. and Badham, R. (1999) Power, Politics and Organizational Change. London:

Corwin Press.Buckley, R. and Caple, J. (1995) The Theory and Practice of Training, 3rd edn. London: Kogan

Page.Burns, L. R. and Wholey, D. R. (1993) ‘Adoption and Abandonment of Matrix Manage-

ment Programmes—Effects of Organisational Characteristics and InterorganizationalNetworks’, Academy of Management Journal 36: 106–38.

Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis.London: Heinemann.

Butler, G. V. (1986) Organization and Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.(Cited in Huczynski, 1993)

Cabinet Office (1994) The Government’s Use of External Consultants. London: HMSO.Callon, M. (1986) ‘Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation—Domestication of the

Scallops and the Fishermen in St Brieuc Bay’, in J. Law (ed.) Power, Action and Belief.London: RKP.

Carson, P. P., Lanier, P., Carson, K. D. and Guidry, B. N. (2000) ‘Clearing a Path throughthe Management Fashion Jungle—Some Preliminary Trailblazing’, Academy of ManagementJournal 43(6): 1143–58.

Carter, C. and Crowther, D. (2000) ‘Organisational Consumerism—The Appropriation ofPackaged Managerial Knowledge’, Management Decision 38(9): 626–37.

Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C. L. (1996) Managing Mergers, Acquisitions and Strategic Alliances.London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Chanlat, J.-F. (1996) ‘From Cultural Imperialism to Independence’, in S. R. Clegg and G.Palmer (eds) The Politics of Management Knowledge. London: Sage.

Child, J. and Rodrigues, S. (1996) ‘The Role of Social Identity in the International Transferof Knowledge through Joint Ventures’, in S. R. Clegg and G. Palmer (eds) The Politics ofManagement Knowledge. London: Sage.




Clark, P. A. (1987) Anglo-American Innovation. New York: de Gruyter.Clark, P. and Mueller, F. (1996) ‘Organisations and Nations: From Universalism to

Institutionalisation?’, British Journal of Management 7(2): 125–39.Clark, T. (1995) Managing Consultants—Consultancy as the Management of Impressions.

Buckingham: Open University Press.Clark, T. and Greatbatch, D. (2002) ‘Collaborative Relationships in the Creation and

Fashioning of Ideas—Gurus, Editors and Managers’, in M. Kipping and L. Engwall (eds)Management Consulting—Emergence and Dynamics of a Knowledge Industry. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Cleverley, G. (1971) Managers and Magic. London: Longman.Collins, D. (2000) Management Fads and Buzzwords. London: Routledge.Cyr, D. J. and Schneider, S. C. (1996) ‘Implications for Learning: HRM in East–West Joint

Ventures’, Organization Studies 17(2): 207–26.Czarniawska, B. and Joerges, B. (1996) ‘Travels of Ideas’, in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevon

(eds) Translating Organizational Change. Berlin: de Gruyter.Czarniawska, B. and Sevon, G. (1996) ‘Introduction’, in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevon (eds)

Translating Organizational Change. Berlin: de Gruyter.Dierkes, M., Berthoin, A., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (eds) (2001) Handbook of Organizational

Learning and Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Djelic, M.-L. (1998) Exporting the American Model—The Post-war Transformation of European

Business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Doorewaard, H. and van Bistjerveld, M. (2001) ‘The Osmosis of Ideas—An Analysis of the

Integrated Approach to IT Management from a Translation Perspective’, Organization8(1): 55–76.

Dore, R. (1973) British Factory—Japanese Factory. London: Allen and Unwin.du Gay, P. (1996) Consumption and Identity at Work. London: Sage.du Gay, P. and Salaman, G. (1992) ‘The Cult(ure) of the Customer’, Journal of Management

Studies 29(5): 615–33.Eccles, R. G. and Nohria, N. (1992) Beyond the Hype—Rediscovering the Essence of Management.

Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Edwards, P., Collinson, M. and Rees, C. (1998) ‘The Determinants of Employee Responses

to TQM: Six Case Studies’, Organization Studies 19(3): 449–75.Edwards, R. (1979) Contested Terrain. New York: Basic Books.Eisenhardt, K. M. and Santos, F. M. (2002) ‘Knowledge-based View—A New Theory of

Strategy?’, in A. Pettigrew, A. Thomas and R. Whittington (eds) Handbook of Strategy andManagement. London: Sage.

Ezzamel, M., Lilley, S. and Willmott, H. (1994) ‘A Survey of Management Practices’,Management Accounting (July): 10–12.

Fan, Y. (1998) ‘The Transfer of Western Management to China’, Management Learning29(2): 201–21.

Festinger, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.Fincham, R. (1999) ‘The Client–Consultant Relationship—Critical Perspectives on the

Management of Organisational Change’, Journal of Management Studies 36(3): 335–51.Fincham, R. (2002) ‘Charisma v Technique—Differentiating the Expertise of Management

Gurus and Management Consultants’, in T. Clark and R. Fincham (eds) CriticalConsulting. Oxford: Blackwell.

Fineman, S. (ed.) (2000) Emotion in Organizations, 2nd edn. London: Sage.Fineman, S. (2001) ‘Fashioning the Environment’, Organization 8(1): 17–31.Fineman, S. and Gabriel, Y. (1994) ‘Paradigms of Organizations—An Exploration in

Textbook Rhetorics’, Organization 1(2): 375–99.Ford, J. D. and Ford, L. W. (1995) ‘The Role of Conversations in Producing Intentional

Change in Organizations’, Academy of Management Review 20: 541–70.




Fox, S. (1994a) ‘Debating Management Learning I’, Management Learning 25(1): 83–93.Fox, S. (1994b) ‘Debating Management Learning II’, Management Learning 25(4): 579–97.Furusten, S. (1999) Popular Management Books: How They are Made and What They Mean for

Organizations. London: Routledge.Gibson, J. and Tesone, D. (2001) ‘Management Fads—Emergence, Evolution and Implica-

tions for Managers’, Academy of Management Executive 15(4): 122–34.Gill, J. and Whittle, S. (1992) ‘Management By Panacea: Accounting for Transience’,

Journal of Management Studies 30(2): 281–95.Giroux, H. and Taylor, J. R. (2002) ‘The Justification of Knowledge—Tracking the

Translations of Quality’, Management Learning 33(4): 497–517.Gluckler, J. and Armbruster, T. (2003) ‘Bridging Uncertainty in Management Consulting—

The Mechanisms of Trust and Networked Reputation’, Organization Studies 24(2): 269–97.Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organisation of Experience. New York:

Harper and Row.Grey, C. (1999) ‘We Are All Managers Now?’, Journal of Management Studies 36(5): 561–86.Grint, K. (1994) ‘Reengineering History: Social Resonances and BPR’, Organization 1(1):

179–201.Grint, K. (1997) ‘TQM, BPR, JIT, BSCs and TLAs—Managerial; Waves or Drownings’,

Management Decision 35(10): 731–8.Grint, K. and Case, P. (1998) ‘The Violent Rhetoric of Reengineering—Management

Consultancy on the Offensive’, Journal of Management Studies 35(5): 557–77.Gronn, P. C. (1983) ‘Talk as the Work—The Accomplishment of School Administration’,

Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 1–21.Guillen, M. F. (1994) Models of Management: Work, Authority and Organization in a Comparative

Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Guirdham, M. (1999) Communicating Across Cultures. W. Lafayette, IN: Ichor.Hales, C. (1993) Management Through Organisation. London: Routledge.Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences—International Differences in Work Related Values.

London: Sage.Hollway, W. (1991) Work Psychology and OB, Chs 1, 2 & 8. London: Sage.Huczynski, A. A. (1993) Management Gurus. London: Routledge.Hung, S.-C. and Whittington, R. (1997) ‘Strategies and Institutions: A Pluralistic Account of

Strategies in the Taiwanese Computer Industry’, Organization Studies 18(4): 551–75.Huselid, M. (1995) ‘The Impact of HRM Practices on Turnover, Productivity and Corporate

Financial Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 38(3): 635–72.Jackall, R. (1988) Moral Mazes—The World of Corporate Managers. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Jackson, B. (2001) Management Gurus and Management Fashions. London: Routledge.Jackson, B. (2002) ‘A Fantasy Theme Analysis of Three Guru-led management Fashions’, in

T. Clark and R. Fincham (eds) Critical Consulting. Oxford: Blackwell.Jaggar, A. M. (1989) ‘Love and Knowledge—Emotion and Feminist Epistemology’, in A. M.

Jaggar and S. R. Bordo (eds) Gender/Body/Knowledge—Feminist Reconstructions of Being andKnowing. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Kieser, A. (1997) ‘Rhetoric and Myth in Management Fashion’, Organization 4(1): 49–74.Kipping, M. (2002) ‘Trapped in their Wave—The Evolution of Management Consultancies’,

in T. Clark and R. Fincham (eds) Critical Consulting. Oxford: Blackwell.Knights, D. (1997) ‘Organization Theory in the Age of Deconstruction: Dualism, Gender

and Postmodernism Revisited’, Organization Studies 18(1): 1–19.Knights, D. and Morgan, G. (1991) ‘Corporate Strategy, Organizations and Subjectivity’,

Organization Studies 12(2): 251–74.Kostera, M. (1995) ‘The Modern Crusade—The Missionaries of Management Come to

Eastern Europe’, Management Learning 26(3): 331–52.




Kostova, T. and Roth, K. (2002) ‘Adoption of an Organizational Practice by Subsidiaries ofMNCs: Institutional and Relational Effects’, Academy of Management Journal 45(1): 215–33.

Kunda, G. (1991) Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-tech Corporation.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Lam, A. (1997) ‘Embedded Firms, Embedded Knowledge: Problems of Collaboration andKnowledge Transfer in Global Cooperative Ventures’, Organization Studies 18(6): 973–96.

Latour, B. (1986) ‘The Powers of Association’, in J. Law (ed.) Power, Action and Belief.London: RKP.

Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Law, J. (1992) ‘Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network—Ordering, Strategy and

Heterogeneity’, Systems Practice 5(4): 379–93.Lee, N. and Hassard, J. (1999) ‘Organization Unbound—Actor-network Theory, Research

Strategy and Institutional Flexibility, Organization 6(3): 391–404.Lillrank, P. (1995) ‘The Transfer of Management Innovations from Japan’, Organization

Studies 16(6): 971–89.Littler, C. R. (1982) The Development of the Labour Process in Capitalist Societies. London:

Heinemann.Locke, R. L. (1989) Management Education and Higher Education Since 1940—The Influence of

America on West Germany, Great Britain and France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.McEvily, S. K. and Chakravarthy, B. (2002) ‘The Persistence of Knowledge-based Advantage:

An Empirical Test for Product Performance and Technological Knowledge’, StrategicManagement Journal 23(4): 285–305.

Management Learning (1997) ‘Special Issue—Emotion and Learning in Organizations’28(1).

March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1958) Organizations. New York: Wiley.Marglin, S. A. (1979) ‘Catching Flies With Honey: An Inquiry into Management Initiatives

to Humanise Work’, Economic Analysis and Workers Management 13: 473–85.Markham, C. (1997) Practical Management Consultancy. London: Accountancy Books.Mazza, C. and Alvarez, J.-L. (2000) ‘Haute Couture and Pret-a-Porter—The Popular Press

and the Diffusion of Management Practices’, Organisation Studies 21(3): 567–88.Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. (1977) ‘Institutionalized Organizations—Formal Structure as

Myth and Ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology 83(2): 340–63.Micklewait, J. and Wooldridge, A. (1996) The Witch Doctors—What the Management Gurus are

Saying, Why it Matters and How to Make Sense of it. London: Heinemann.Morgan, G. and Sturdy, A. J. (2000) Beyond Organisational Change—Discourse, Structure and

Power in UK Financial Services. Basingstoke: Macmillan.National Audit Office (2001) Purchasing Professional Services. London: HMSO.Nohria, N., Joyce, W. and Roberson, B. (2003) ‘What Really Works’, Harvard Business Review

81(7): 42–55.Nonaka, I. and Nishiguchi, T. (eds) (2001) Knowledge Emergence—Social, Technical and

Evolutionary Dimensions of Knowledge Creation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Oliver, C. (1992) ‘The Antecedents of Deinstitutionalisation’, Organization Studies 13(4):

563–88.Parker, M. (1995) ‘Working Together, Working Apart: Management Culture in a Manu-

facturing Firm’, Sociological Review 43(3): 518–47.Parker, M. (2002) Against Management—Organization in the Age of Managerialism. Cambridge:

Polity Press.Pettigrew, A. M. (1985) The Awakening Giant—Continuity and Change in ICI. Oxford:

Blackwell.Phillips, J. (2000) The Consultants’ Scorecard—Tracking Results and Bottom-line Impact of

Consulting Projects. New York: McGraw-Hill.Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society—Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.




Ramsay, H. (1977) ‘Cycles of Control’, Sociology 11(3): 481–506.Ramsay, H. (1996) ‘Managing Sceptically: A Critique of Organisational Fashion’, in S. R.

Clegg and G. Palmer (eds) The Politics of Management Knowledge. London: Sage.Reed, M. (1997) ‘In Praise of Duality and Dualism: Rethinking Agency and Structure in

Organizational Analysis’, Organization Studies 18(1): 21–42.Richards, D. (1997) ‘Developing Cross-cultural Management Skills: Experiential Learning

in an International MBA Programme’, Management Learning 28(4): 387–407.Robertson, M., Swan, J. and Newell, S. (1996) ‘The Role of Networks in the Diffusion of

Technological Innovation’, Journal of Management Studies 33(3): 333–59.Rogers, E. M. (1983) Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd edn. New York: Free Press.Rogers, E. M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. New York: Free Press.Rose, N. (1989) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Routledge.Rovik, K.-A. (1996) ‘Deinstitutionalisation and the Logic of Fashion’, in B. Czarniawska and

G. Sevon (eds) Translating Organizational Change. Berlin: de Gruyter.Sahlin-Andersson, K. and Engwall, L. (eds) (2003) The Expansion of Management Knowledge:

Carriers, Ideas and Circulation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Salaman, G. (2002) ‘Understanding Advice—Towards a Sociology of Management Con-

sultancy’, in T. Clark and R. Fincham (eds) Critical Consulting. Oxford: Blackwell.Scarbrough, H. and Burrell, G. (1996) ‘The Axeman Cometh—The Changing Roles and

Knowledges of Middle Managers’, in S. R. Clegg and G. Palmer (eds) The Politics ofManagement Knowledge. London: Sage.

Scarbrough, H. and Corbett, J. M. (1992) Technology and Organisation. London: Routledge.Senge, P. M. and Lim, D. H. (1997) ‘From Fragmentation to Integration—Building

Learning Communities’, The Systems Thinker 8: 4.Sennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character. New York: Norton.Simon, H. (1960) The New Science of Management Decisions. New York: Harper and Row.Simon, L. and Davies, G. (1996) ‘A Contextual Approach to Management Learning—The

Hungarian Case’, Organization Studies 17(3): 269–89.Sinclair, A. (1997) ‘The MBA Through Women’s Eyes’, Management Learning 28(3): 313–30.Smith, C. and Meiksins, P. (1995) ‘System, Society and Dominance Effects in Cross-national

Organisational Analysis’, Work, Employment and Society 9(2): 241–67.Staw, B. M. and Epstein, L. D. (2000) ‘What Bandwagons Bring—Effects of Popular

Management Techniques on Corporate Performance, Reputation and CEO Pay’, ASQ45(3): 523–56.

Strang, D. and Macy, M. (2001) ‘In Search of Excellence—Fads, Success Stories andAdaptive Emulation’, American Journal of Sociology 107(1): 147–82.

Sturdy A. J. (1997) ‘The Consultancy Process—An Insecure Business?’, Journal of Manage-ment Studies 34(3): 389–413.

Sturdy, A. J. (2001) ‘The Global Diffusion of Customer Service—A Critique of Cultural andInstitutional Perspectives’, Asia Pacific Business Review 7(3): 73–87.

Sturdy, A. J. (2002) ‘Front-line Diffusion—The Production and Negotiation of Knowledgethrough Training Interactions’, in T. Clark and R. Fincham (eds) Critical Consulting—Perspectives on the Management Advice Industry. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sturdy, A. J. (2003) ‘Knowing the Unknowable?—A Discussion of Methodological andTheoretical Issues in Emotion Research and Organisational Studies’, Organization 10(1):81–105.

Sturdy, A. J. and Fleming, P. (2003) ‘Talk as Technique—A Critique of the Words andDeeds Distinction in the Diffusion of Customer Service Cultures’, Journal of ManagementStudies 40(5): 753–73.

Sturdy, A. J. and Gabriel, Y. (2000) ‘Missionaries, Mercenaries or Car Salesmen?—MBATeaching in Malaysia’, Journal of Management Studies 37(7): 979–1002.




Swan, J., Scarborough, H. and Robertson, M. (2002) ‘The Construction of Communities ofPractice in the Management of Innovation’, Management Learning 33(4): 477–96.

Tayeb, M. H. (1996) The Management of a Multicultural Workforce. Chichester: Wiley.Ten Bos, R. (2000) Fashion and Utopia in Management Thinking (Advances in Organization

Studies). Berlin: John Benjamins.Thomas, A. B. (1993) ‘Sacred Cows and Other Animals’, Times Higher Education Supplement

26 November.Thomas, P. (2003) ‘The Recontextualization of Management—A Discourse-based Approach

to Analysing the Development of Management Thinking’, Journal of Management Studies40(4): 775–801.

Tidd, J. (2001) ‘Innovation Management in Context—Environment, Organization andPerformance’, International Journal of Management Reviews 3(3): 169–83.

Toda, M. (1980) ‘Emotion and decision making’, Acta Psychologica 45: 133–55.Tolbert, P. S. and Zucker, L. G. (1983) ‘Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal

Structure of Organizations—The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform’, Administrative ScienceQuarterly 28: 22–39.

Tolbert, P. S. and Zucker, L. G. (1996) ‘The Institutionalization of Institutional Theory’, inS. R. Clegg et al. (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage.

Van de Ven, A. H. and Poole, M. S. (1995) ‘Explaining Development and Change inOrganisations’, Academy of Management Review 20(3): 510–40.

Villinger, R. (1996) ‘Post-acquisition Managerial Learning in Central East Europe’, Organi-zation Studies 17(2): 181–206.

Warner, M. (1991) ‘How Chinese Managers Learn’, Journal of General Management 16(4):66–84.

Watson, T. J. (1994) In Search of Management: Culture Chaos and Control in Managerial Work.London: Routledge.

Watson, T. J. (1995) ‘Rhetoric, Discourse and Argument in Organizational Sense Making—A Reflexive Tale’, Organization Studies 16(5): 805–21.

Watson, T. J. (1996) ‘How do Managers Think?’, Management Learning 27(3): 323–42.Weinstein, M. and Kochan, T. (1995) ‘The Limits of Diffusion—Recent Developments in IR

and HR Practices in the USA’, in R. Locke, T. Kochan and M. Piore (eds) EmploymentRelations in a Changing World Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Whitley, R. (1992) ‘The Social Construction of Organizations and Markets’, in M. Reed andM. Hughes (eds) Rethinking Organization. London: Sage.

Whitley, R. (1994) ‘The Internationalisation of Firms & Markets’, Organization 1(1): 101–24.Whitley, R. (2000) ‘The Institutional Structuring of Innovation Strategies—Business Sys-

tems, Firm Types and Patterns of Technical Change in Different Market Economies’,Organization Studies 21(5): 855–86.

Whitley, R. and Kristensen, P. H. (1996) The Changing European Firm. London: Routledge.Whittington, R. (1992) ‘Putting Giddens into Action: Social systems and Managerial

Agency’, Journal of Management Studies 29(4): 693–712.Whittington, R. and Whipp, R. (1992) ‘Professional Ideology and Marketing Implementa-

tion’, European Journal of Marketing 26(1): 52–63.Wilkinson, B. (1996) ‘Culture, Institutions and Business in E Asia’, Organization Studies

17(3): 421–47.Williams, S. J. and Bendelow, G. A. (1996) ‘Emotions and “Sociological Imperialism”—A

Rejoinder to Craib’, Sociology 30(1): 145–53.Wilson, F. (1996) ‘Organization Theory—Blind and Deaf to Gender’, Organization Studies

17(5): 825–42.Wolfe, R. A. (1994) ‘Organizational Innovation—Review, Critique and Suggested Research

Directions’, Journal of Management Studies 31(3): 405–31.




Wood, S. (1979) ‘A Reappraisal of the Contingency Approach to Organisation’, Journal ofManagement Studies 16(3): 334–54.

Wood, S. (1999) ‘HRM and Performance’, International Journal of Management Reviews 1(4):367–413.

Contact Address

Andrew Sturdy is in the Tanaka Business School, Imperial College London, London SW72AZ, UK.[email: [email protected]]




Date post:	15-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Andrew Sturdy · 2020-05-22 · Andrew Sturdy Imperial College London, UK The Adoption of...

Documents