This article investigates how a group of Danish business actors translated the American practice of diversity management into a novel managerial practice in Denmark. Their translation process unfolded at three levels: (a) individual preference, (b) strategic reframing, and (c) local grounding. The findings contribute to a better understanding of translation processes and have implications for future research and managerial practice.
Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 78-108.
2.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
3.
Biggart, N. W., & Guillén, M. F. (1999). Developing difference: Social organization and the rise of the auto industries of South Korea, Taiwan, Spain, and Argentina. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 722-747.
4.
Boxenbaum, E., & Battilana, J. (2005). Importation as innovation: Transposing managerial practices across fields. Strategic Organization, 3(4), 355-383.
5.
Campbell, J. (2004). Institutional change and globalization: Exploring problems in the new institutional analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
Djelic, M.-L. (1998). Exporting the American model: The postwar transformation of European Business. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7.
Djelic, M.-L., & Quack, S. (Eds.). (2003). Globalization and institutions: Redefining the rules of the economic game. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
8.
Dobbin, F. (1994). Forging industrial policy: The United States, Britain, and France in the railway age. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 397-405.
10.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232-263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutional fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58-80.
13.
Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476-501.
14.
Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (1998). How affirmative action became diversity management: Employer response to anti-discrimination law, 1961-1996. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 960-984.
15.
Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 281-291.
16.
Lippi, A. (2000). One theory, many practices: Institutional allomorphism in the managerialist reorganization of Italian governments. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 16, 455-477.
17.
Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P. M. (2003). Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: A cultural-political perspective on US recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 1, 71-104.
18.
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.
19.
Morrill, C. (in press). Institutional change and interstitial emergence: The growth of alternative dispute resolution in American law, 1965-95. In W. W. Powell & D. L. Jones (Eds.), How institutions change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
Pieterse, J. N. (1994). Globalization as hybridization. International Sociology, 9(2), 161-184.
21.
Schneiberg, M. (2002). Organizational heterogeneity and the production of new forms: Politics, social movements and mutual companies in American fire insurance, 1900-1930. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 19, 39-89.
22.
Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Jr., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464-481.
23.
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1994). Institutional conditions for diffusion. In W. R. Scott & J. W. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism (pp. 100-112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74, 79-90.
25.
Wynter, L. E. (1996, February 7). Business & race: Advocates try to tie diversity to profit. Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
