This article presents an in-depth case study of the adoption patterns of performance management within a Norwegian multinational enterprise. The case allows the contrasting of a set of theoretical perspectives that provide different accounts of management knowledge diffusion. We review four perspectives named Conformity, Transfer, Translation and Local Modification, and find that each perspective can account for only parts of the observed adoption patterns in the multinational. The perspectives complement each other and together they provide more comprehensive ‘lenses’ for studying the diffusion of management knowledge. For future research, we suggest three strategies: to develop multi-perspectives typologies of diffusion outcomes, to develop multi-perspective process models, and to develop a meta-theory with propositions specifying conditions when different outcome types will be prevalent.
Adler, P. S. and Borys, B. (1993) ‘Materialism and Idealism in Organizational Research’Organization Studies14(5): 657-679 .
2.
Alvarez, J. L. (1998) ‘The Sociological Tradition and the Spread and Institutionalization Knowledge for Action’, in J. L. Alvarez (ed.) The Diffusion and Consumption of Business Knowledge, pp. 13-57. Basingstoke: Macmillan .
3.
Beer, M. , Spector, B. and Eisenstat, R. A. (1990) The Critical Path to Corporate Renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press .
4.
Beyer, J. M. , Ashmos, D. P. and Osborn, R. N. (1997) ‘Contrasts in Enacting TQM: Mechanistic vs. Organic Ideology and Implementation’ , Journal of Quality Management2(1): 3-39 .
5.
Brunsson, N. (1989) The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations. Chichester: Wiley .
6.
Cailluet, L. (1998) ‘Selective Adaptation of American Management Models: the Long-term Relationship of Pechiney with the United States’, in M. Kipping and O. Bjarnar (eds) The Americanization of European Business, pp. 190-207. London: Routledge .
7.
Clark, E. and Geppert, M. (2002) ‘Management Learning and Knowledge Transfer in Transforming Societies: Approaches, Issues and Future Directions’ , Human Resource Development International5(3): 263-277 .
8.
Cummings, T. G. and Mohrman, S. A. (1987) ‘Self-designing Organizations: Towards Implementing Quality-of-Work-Life Innovations’, Research in Organizational Change and Development, vol. 1, pp. 275-310. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press .
9.
Czarniawska, B. and Joerges, B. (1996) ‘Travel of Ideas’, in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevón (eds) Translating Organizational Change, pp. 13-48. Berlin: de Gruyter .
10.
Czarniawska, B. and Sevón, G. (1996a) ‘Introduction’, in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevón (eds) Translating Organizational Change, pp. 1-12. Berlin: de Gruyter .
11.
Czarniawska, B. and Sevón, G. (eds) (1996b) Translating Organizational Change. Berlin: de Gruyter .
12.
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983/1991) ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’, in W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 63-82. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
13.
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1991) ‘Introduction’, in W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 1-38. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
14.
Djelic, M.-L. (1998) Exporting the American Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
15.
Dunning, J. (1998) ‘US-owned Manufacturing Affiliates and the Transfer of Managerial Techniques: The British Case’, in M. Kipping and O. Bjarnar (eds) The Americanisation of European Business, pp. 43-72. London: Routledge .
16.
Engwall, L. (1999) The Carriers of European Management Ideas. Uppsala: Företagsekonomiska Institutionen, Uppsala Universitet .
17.
Fligstein, N. (1985) ‘The Spread of the Multidivisional Form among Large Firms’, 1919-1979’ , American Sociological Review50(3): 377-391 .
18.
Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C. A. (1988) ‘Creation, Adoption, and Diffusion of Innovations by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations’ , Journal of International Business Studies19(Fall): 365-388 .
19.
Ghoshal, S. and Westney, D. E. (eds) (1993) Organization Theory and the Multinational Corporation. New York: St Martin’s Press .
20.
Glimstedt, H. (1998) ‘Americanization and the “Swedish Model” of Industrial Relations: The Introduction of the MTM System at Volvo in the Postwar Period’, in M. Kipping and O. Bjarnar (eds) The Americanisation of European Business, pp. 133-148. London: Routledge .
21.
Gupta, A. K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000) ‘Knowledge Flows within Multinational Corporations’ , Strategic Management Journal21(4): 473-496 .
22.
Hansen, M. T. (1999) ‘The Search-transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits’ , Administrative Science Quarterly44(1): 82-111 .
23.
Hennestad, B. W. (1998) ‘Empowering by De-depowering: Towards an HR Strategy for Realizing the Power of Empowerment’ , International Journal of Human Resource Management9(5): 934-953 .
24.
Huselid, M. (1995) ‘The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity and Corporate Financial Performance’ , Academy of Management Journal38(3): 635-672 .
25.
Kedia, B. L. and Bhagat, R. S. (1988) ‘Cultural Constraints on Transfer of Technology across Nations: Implications for Research in International and Comparative Management’ , Academy of Management Review13(4): 559-571 .
26.
Kipping, M. and Bjarnar, O. (eds) (1998) The Americanisation of European Business. London: Routledge .
27.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1993) ‘Knowledge of the Firms and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation’ , Journal of International Business Studies24(4): 625-646 .
28.
Kostova, T. (1999) ‘Transnational Transfer of Strategic Organizational Practices: A Contextual Perspective’ , Academy of Management Review24(2): 308-324 .
29.
Kostova, T. and Roth, K. (2002) ‘Adoption of an Organizational Practice by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations: Institutional and Relational Effects’ , Academy of Management Journal45(1): 215-233 .
30.
Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
31.
Levin, M. (1997) ‘Technology Transfer is Organization Development: An Investigation into the Relationship between Technology Transfer and Organizational Change’ , International Journal of Technology Management14(2/3/4): 297-308 .
32.
Marcus, A. A. (1988) ‘Implementing Externally Induced Innovations: A Comparison of Rule-bound and Autonomous Approaches’ , Academy of Management Journal31(2): 235-256 .
33.
Meyer, J. W. (1996) ‘Otherhood: The Promulgation and Transmission of Ideas in the Modern Organizational Environment’, in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevón (eds) Translating Organizational Change, pp. 241-252. Berlin: de Gruyter .
34.
Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. (1977/1991) ‘Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony’, in W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 41-62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
35.
Oliver, C. (1991) ‘Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes’ , Academy of Management Review16(1): 145-179 .
36.
Orrú, M. , Biggart, N. W. and Hamilton, G. G. (1991) ‘Organizational Isomorphism in East Asia’, in W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 361-389. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
37.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1990) ‘Longitudinal Field Research on Change; Theory and Practice’ , Organization Science1(3): 267-292 .
38.
Polanyi, K. (1944) The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press .
39.
Rogers, E. M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn.New York: Free Press .
40.
Røvik, K. A. (1998) Moderne organisasjoner: Trender i organisasjonstenkningen ved tusenårsskiftet. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget .
41.
Sahlin-Andersson, K. (1996) ‘Imitating by Editing Success: The Construction of Organizational Fields’, in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevón (eds) Translating Organizational Change, pp. 69-91. Berlin: de Gruyter .
42.
Sahlin-Andersson, K. and Engwall, L. (2002) The Expansion of Management Knowledge: Carriers, Flows, and Sources. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books .
43.
Selznick, P. (1957) Leadership in Administration. A Sociological Interpretation. New York: Harper & Row .
44.
Sevón, G. (1996) ‘Imitation and Organizational Identity’, in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevón (eds) Translating Organizational Change, pp. 49-68. Berlin: de Gruyter .
45.
Strang, D. (1987) ‘The Administrative Transformation of American Education: School District Consolidation, 1938-1980’ , Administrative Science Quarterly32(3): 352-366 .
46.
Strang, D. and Meyer, J. W. (1994) ‘Institutional Conditions for Diffusion’, in W. R. Scott and J. W. Meyer (eds) Institutional Environments and Organizations, pp. 100-112. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
47.
Szulanski, G. (1996) ‘Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm’ , Strategic Management Journal17(Winter): 27-43 .
48.
Szulanski, G. (2000) ‘The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of Stickiness’ , Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes82(1): 9-27 .
49.
Westney, E. (1987) Imitation and Innovation—The Transfer of Western Organizational Patterns to Meiji Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
50.
Zander, U. and Kogut, B. (1995) ‘Knowledge and the Speed of Transfer and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test’ , Organization Science6(1): 76-92 .
51.
Zeitlin, J. and Herrigel, G. (eds) (2000) Americanization and its Limits—Reworking US Technology and Management in Post-war Europe and Japan. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
52.
Zuboff, S. (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. New York: Basic Books .
