Translating Management Concepts: Towards a Typology of Alternative Approaches

• Date: 01 July 2016
• Author: Joep Cornelissen,Stefan Heusinkveld,Marlieke Grinsven
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12106
• Published date: 01 July 2016

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 18, 271–289 (2016)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12106

Translating Management Concepts:

Towards a Typology of Alternative

Approaches

Marlieke van Grinsven, Stefan Heusinkveld and Joep Cornelissen1

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1Rotterdam School

of Management, Erasmus University, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062, PA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Corresponding author email: M.van.grinsven@vu.nl

Translation has been established as an important theoretical perspective for studying

the flow of management concepts. Yet, despite its potential, we find limited reflection

on the various ways in which the perspective is understood and used. As the under-

theorized and fragmented discourse may hamper the progress of translation research

as an academic field, it is in need of closer examination. The purpose of this paper is to

explorethe different conceptualizations of translation, in terms of their key foci and base

assumptions, and to review the work that has accumulated into different sub-streams.

Based on a systematic literature reviewof 150 publications, we identify two theoretically

relevant dimensions that mark important differences between these different streams

of research: (1) the source of variation; and (2) the object of variation. With these

dimensions, we develop a typology of four alternative approaches to translation and

show how these are associated with institutional, rational, dramaturgical and political

perspectives. We draw on these broader theoretical lenses to contextualize and deepen

our understanding of the specific possibilities and limitations of alternative translation

approaches, and we highlight the potential for further connections and integration

between them.

Introduction

The last two decades have witnessed a growing

academic interest in the ebb and flow of manage-

ment ideas (Birkinshaw et al. 2014; Sturdy et al.

2009). Specifically, the development, spread and

adoption of management concepts (Mueller and

Carter 2005) such as Total Quality Management

(TQM), Lean Management and Business Process

Re-engineering have been studied extensively. To

date, a number of useful approaches and perspec-

tives have helped understanding the prevalence of

these concepts, and their implications for manage-

ment and organization research (Birkinshaw et al.

2008; Parush 2008; Sturdy 2004). One theoretical per-

spective that proliferated quietly but rapidly is ‘trans-

lation’ (Sturdy 2004), a construct strongly associated

with, and considered to be one of the central pillars

of, ‘Scandinavian Institutionalism’ (Czarniawska and

Joerges 1996; Røvik 1996; Sahlin-Andersson 1996).

In the mid-1990s, drawing on insights from Actor-

Network Theory (or a Sociology of Translation)(Cal-

lon 1986; Latour 1986, 1987; Law 1986, 1991),

these theorists developed a critique on diffusion mod-

els of innovation underlying the established neo-

institutionalism traditions.

In the eyes of these early translation scholars,

neo-institutional theory was too concerned with sta-

bility and standardization and did not adequately

address and explain the issue of change (Czarniawska

2008). They sought to distance themselves from neo-

institutional approaches by shifting their focus to the

ways in which agents actively respond to, and en-

act regulations, norms, values and cultural-cognitive

beliefs, thereby highlighting organizational variation

and distinctiveness over stability and standardization

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

272 M. van Grinsven et al.

(Frandsen and Johansen 2013). This early translation

literature concerned itself mainly with how ideas be-

come modified when adapted from their original so-

cial contexts to new specific settings. Central to this

tradition of research is the ‘travel of ideas’ metaphor,

with its dis-embedding and re-embedding dialectic

(Czarniawska and Joerges 1996; Mica 2013).

In spite of its ‘quiet emergence’ (Sturdy 2004),

the translation perspective has since proliferated and

gained prominence. In a recent paper, Nielsen et al.

(2014, p. 168) emphasize: ‘Although this perspec-

tive is [. . . ] recognized as Scandinavian in origin,

its contribution is also echoed in organizational re-

search in Europe and the United States and portrayed

as one of the “expanding horizons” of institutional

thinking’. The approach has become an increasingly

appealing avenue for studying the institutionalization

process of management concepts, particularly given

its emphasis on the active role of agents, the mobiliza-

tion of interest in creating practice variation (Zilber

2006), and its contribution to ‘gaining a more detailed

and process oriented understanding of the way by

which social meanings are mobilized and gain [ . . . ]

support in the innovation processes’ (Waldorff 2013,

p. 220).

However, and perhaps unsurprisingly given its

(social) constructivist foundations, increasing the

likelihood of multiple and possibly conflicting con-

ceptions (cf. Benders and Van Veen 2001; Giroux

2006), ‘translation’ has come to accommodate a

growing range of different interpretations. While the

growing number of studies on translation do share a

focus on the modification of ideas by agentic actors in

relation to a specific context, most interpretations are

partial and highlight only specific aspects. Little atten-

tion is given to describing or systematizing the result-

ing divergent approaches. Lervik and Lunnan (2004),

for instance, argue that ‘translation’ represents a fo-

cus on management knowledge as constructed, em-

phasizing the symbolic aspects of diffusion. Others,

in contrast, draw on the perspective to theorize vari-

ation in local configurations as a result of organiza-

tional conditions (Ulbrich 2010) or to explain politi-

cal processes of interest translation (Kelemen 2000).

Additionally, differences exist in how core elements

are interpreted. For example, the concept of interest

translation from Actor-Network Theory ranges in the

symmetry with which it is applied. Some studies em-

phasize the position of specific actors in the process

of translation. Kelemen (2000, p. 495), for example,

argues that through a ‘process of interest translation

[ . . . ] employeesare seduced, forced or rationally con-

vinced that TQM is a viable and profitable option for

all of them’. Meanwhile, others advocate an approach

to ‘int´

eressement’, which recognizes the existence of

multiple translations from different origins and ac-

knowledges that the translator must displace his own

goals as well as those of others (e.g. Giroux 2006).

Although there are occasional references to the

‘different flavors of this constructed view of manage-

ment knowledge’ (Lervik and Lunnan 2004, p. 295),

translation is persistently presented as a fairly coher-

ent and delimited perspective, with little acknowledg-

ment of its internal variation. This tendency, blurring

both the boundaries and the specific contributions

of translation in studying the flow of management

concepts, is especially striking, given that the very

point of translation is to capture the process through

which variation occurs. Even Czarniawska and

Joerges (1996, p. 48) wondered from the outset

whether and how their ideas on translation would

be translated into others’ publications, as ‘the results

of the translation process cannot be deduced from

the idea itself’. And whereas the current conceptual

ambiguity in translation as a perspective may allow

us to recognize our own situations and select those

elements that appeal to us (Benders and Van Veen

2001), it also creates a double-edged sword. After all,

even without a direct necessity to engage in a nar-

rower interpretation of the concepts and components

at stake, the under-theorized and fragmented dis-

course hampers a reflexive understanding and appre-

ciation of different approaches and interferes with an

informed comparison and possible integration of sub-

streams.

In recognition of such needs and challenges, the

purpose of this paper is to engage in a closer exami-

nation of different approaches to translation in study-

ing the flow of management concepts, and to identify

systematically the conceptualizations and interpreta-

tions through which researchers have redefined and

revised the meaning of translation. Our aim is to

shed light on the specific advantages and limita-

tions of the current approaches and their underlying

assumptions, and to identify opportunities for fur-

ther integration between positions in future research

endeavors.

Based on a systematic analysis of how transla-

tion is used across an extensive set of relevant pub-

lications, three specific contributions can be made.

First, given that both the flow of management con-

cepts and the perspective of translation are accom-

panied by a plethora of labels and sub-streams, the

content and boundaries of research on translation

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