Middle Managers and the Translation of New Ideas in Organizations: A Review of Micro‐practices and Contingencies

• Published date: 01 July 2016
• Author: Giovanni Radaelli,Lucy Sitton‐Kent
• Date: 01 July 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12094

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 18, 311–332 (2016)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12094

Middle Managers and the Translation

of New Ideas in Organizations: A Review

of Micro-practices and Contingencies

Giovanni Radaelli and Lucy Sitton-Kent1

Warwick Business School, Universityof Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK, and 1Nottingham University Business

School, University of Nottingham, Innovation Park,Triumph Road, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, UK

Corresponding author email: giovanni.radaelli@wbs.ac.uk

Translation theories argue that the transformation of new ideas is ‘in the hands of

people’ and that actors at multiple organizational levels interact to affect this pro-

cess. However, previous research has focused mostly on executive managers or R&D

departments, while other organizational actors, who have a comparable influence on

the translation process, have received little systematic analysis of their role. This study

draws upon this premise to review the existing literature on middle managers’ engage-

ment with the translation of new ideas. The findings followmiddle managers throughout

the translation process, i.e. from the acquisition of the newideas to its stabilization. The

authors identify the micro-practices pursued by middle managers to affect the travel

of the new idea within the organization, and the contingencies that explain when and

how middle managers engage in specific translation stages. The paper concludes with

discussions of the main implications and indications for middle managers and future

directions for research.

Introduction

Organizations invest attention and resources in the

systematic acquisition, assimilation and exploitation

of new ideas in order to develop practices or prod-

ucts that engender competitive advantages, adapta-

tion to dynamic environments and responsiveness to

customers’ demands (Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler

2009; O’Reilly and Tushman 2008; Volberda et al.

2010). With the increasing relevance of this topic in

management research, severalstudies have refined the

theory about what organizations do to ‘acquire, as-

similate and exploit’ new ideas, moving from linear

models of diffusion to non-linear models of transla-

Giovanni Radaelli is supported by the National Institute for

Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Ap-

plied Health Research and Care West Midlands. This paper

presents independent research, and the views expressed are

those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS,

the NIHR or the Department of Health.

tion, where ideas are conceived as fluid entities that

change when moving from ‘here to there’, because

of a complex web of activities in the organization

(Ansari et al. 2010; Czarniawska and Sevon 1996;

Doorewaard and van Bijsterveld 2001; Sturdy 2004).

Different translation theories all agree that research

should investigate the dynamic interaction oftranslat-

ing actors, translation processes and translated ideas

(Czarniawska and Sevon 1996; Latour 1987). Em-

pirical studies, however, have usually focused on the

translated ideas, seeking to explain how properties

and applications of a given idea (e.g. Total Quality

Management, Activity Based Costing) change across

different organizations, and differ from its original

form (Jones and Dugdale 2002; Westphalet al. 1997);

and on the translation process, seeking to explain

‘what happens’ during the translation of new ideas

within the organization and what activities produce

specific outcomes (Doorewaard and van Bijsterveld

2001).

C2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Publishedby John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington

Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

312 G. Radaelli and L. Sitton-Kent

Studies that focus on the role of translating actors

are fewer and lack cumulative impact. Past research

emphasized that actors play a central role in trans-

lation theory, because ‘the spread in time and space

of anything – claims, orders, artefacts, goods – is in

the hands of people’ (Johnson and Hagstr¨

om 2005,

p. 371). Only a few studies, however, have moved

from local and context-specific descriptions of indi-

vidual behaviours to theories on the role that spe-

cific cadres of actors have during the translation of

ideas. Furthermore, these few studies have almost

exclusively focused upon R&D departments or ex-

ecutive managers (Lane et al. 2006; Volberda et al.

2010), while other actors (e.g. frontline employees,

middle managers (MMs), management consultants),

who may have significant influence on the transla-

tion process, have not been subject to any systematic

analysis of their role.

Our review addresses this research gap, providing

a translation-based analysis of the literature on MMs’

agency in organizations. Several studies describe

MMs involved in the travel of new ideas, e.g. acquir-

ing external knowledge, resisting or implementing

initiatives from executive managers, or championing

new practices from the frontline (Rouleau and

Balogun 2011; Wooldridge et al. 2008). While MMs’

presence in the travel of new ideas is acknowledged,

there have been few systematic attempts to inves-

tigate their activity explicitly from the perspective

of translation theory (e.g. Teulier and Rouleau

2013). Our study thus seeks to provide two main

contributions.

First, we reconstruct the activities and tactics un-

dertaken by MMs during the translation of new ideas.

Our review interprets the evidence produced in differ-

ent research fields (e.g. organizational development,

innovation, strategy-as-practice) according to exist-

ing translation frameworks (e.g. Czarniawska and

Sevon 1996; Doorewaard and van Bijsterveld 2001).

Thus, weidentify relevant micro-practices and themes

that describe how the translation of new ideas is un-

dertaken by MMs in an organization.

Second, we reconstruct the contingencies that af-

fect MMs’ involvement in the translation process.

Middle managers are often reluctant to depart from

their ancillary role to avoid interpersonal risks with

executive management and frontline staff (Harding

et al. 2014; Wooldridge et al. 2008). Therefore, it is

important to highlight individual, organizational and

social factors that make MMs more willing to engage

with the translation of new ideas; and more effective

in influencing this process.

Methodology

Definition of middle managers

Harding et al. (2014, p. 1214) define middle man-

agement as ‘a position in organisational hierarchies

between the operating core and the apex whose oc-

cupants are responsible for a particular business unit

at this intermediate level of the corporate hierarchy

that comprises all those below the top level strategic

management and above first-level supervision’. They

argue that ‘there is a consensus in definition’ (Dopson

and Stewart 1990; Floyd and Lane 2000; Mintzberg

1989; Wooldridge et al. 2008). This definition uses

the reference system of an organization, rather than a

system/network of organizations. As such, while hos-

pital CEOs might be MMs within the overall structure

of the NHS, they are treated as top managers in our

study.The inter mediate position represents a defining

feature of MMs, because it triggers one property that

separates them from others, i.e. they are ‘at once con-

troller,controlled, resister and resisted’ (Harding et al.

2014, p. 1231), whereas top managers are controllers

and resisted, and employees and first-line supervisors

are resisters and controlled. Providing this definition,

Harding et al. (2014, p. 1214) also argued that ‘discus-

sions about the function of middle management lack

such agreement’. Indeed, studies displayed very di-

verse interpretations of MMs’ functions, e.g. MMs as

primarily responsible for communicating information

and executing strategies (e.g. Glaser et al. 2015) or

influential strategizers (e.g. Wooldridge et al. 2008).

This debate, however, does not challenge the predom-

inant definition, so it did not affect our review.

The proposed definition implies that a rather di-

verse cadre of actors can be labelled as MMs. In par-

ticular, studies are increasingly talking about ‘hybrid’

MMs, i.e. actors such as clinical directors, nurse man-

agers or ward managers (Burgess and Currie 2013;

Reay et al. 2006), who might not consider themselves

MMs, but occupy an intermediate position and sub-

stitute the functions of generalist MMs. We included

these figures in our review because they represent one

of the most significant advancements in MM-related

research, and will account for their professional back-

ground as a contingency for MMs’ translation agency.

Definition of translation

We define ‘translation’ as the effort to embed in a

given work context (e.g. in an organization, team or

unit) ideas that have been originated elsewhere. This

interpretation is shared by otherwise very different

C2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.