26th EGOS Colloquium, Lisbon, 2010, Call for Papers New Institutionalism

Management and glocalization: Global dissemination and local adaptation of managerial concepts

Convenors:

Gili S. Drori, Stanford University, USA

Markus A. Höllerer, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria

markus.hoellerer@wu-wien.ac.at

Peter Walgenbach, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Germany

Call for Papers

Management concepts – e.g., shareholder value or total quality management – disseminate on a global scale and, following one of the basic assumptions of neoinstitutional organizational theory, similarly imprint structures and practices of organizations (DiMaggio/Powell 1983). In the course of substantial research on diffusion, with neoinstitutional arguments playing a decisive role, this assumption has been confirmed to large extent (Scott 2008). However, even if new management concepts are globally available, and have been theorized to a high degree in their native context (Meyer 2002), they nonetheless need to have passed through a powerful filter of local structural and cultural constraints in order to become legitimate in other contexts (Meyer 2004). The result is a world of universalized yet nevertheless glocalized management: Global themes that imprint isomorphic management are coupled with variations by local context.

The phenomenon of recurring global dissemination of management concepts into local contexts of management practice has been referred to by using the metaphor of “waves” of management concepts and, thus, evokes a wide range of associations. We might think of them being characterized by different wavelength, amplitude, velocity, and trajectory – and of course by the traces and consequences they leave behind when they hit ashore: the continual or sudden, gentle or fierce changes they entail in the local contexts. However, we also recognize that each “coastal area” has its own unique characteristics that, to a larger or lesser degree, protect its “beaches” from the “sea” and incoming waves: As organizational practices are embedded in distinct fields or contexts and, consequently, are imbued with specific cultural meaning, they cannot be transferred to other contexts directly (Brunsson 1989; Sahlin-Andersson/Engwall 2002; Snow/Benford 1999). Consequently, this leads to “translations” and “editing processes” (Czarniawska/Joerges 1996; Sahlin-Andersson 1996) and implies that various local versions of global trends get established alongside hybrid forms mingling with indigenous, more established practices. In addition, we might be interested in the more constant movements shaping organizational practice, in the “tides”; or in identifying “big waves” and those who are riding such waves (e.g., academia, consultants, media). We might also focus on their origin and the implications of such directionality: For several decades, the majority of management concepts has been stemming from a North-American origin and therefore incorporating specific ideology (Djelic 1998), including the recent “tsunami-like” crisis emanating from Wall Street and sending a series of devastating waves around the globe, bewildering executive management and citizens alike. It is therefore timely to study the role of critical events on the path, strength, and content of the global diffusion of management ideas and practices: After the rather spectacular crash of the “myth of shareholder value” (Dobbin/Zorn 2005), what will be the next surfable wave? Or, how skeptical, reluctant or averse will organizations be towards global management notions (or to the advice of propagators of such notions), i.e., will organizations stay “clear from the sea” for some time? Last, with this change of economic tides comes the interest in the nature of global management: To what degree are these ideas mere fads, passing “storms”, or “tempest in a tea cup”, and in what ways is their impact more permanent?

In this sub-theme, we encourage papers to connect with existing lines of research and to develop an interest in the processes through which management concepts are (de-)institutionalized as appropriate organizational practices. We therefore invite papers that:

advance diffusion research by empirically exploring the underlying mechanisms such as processes of adoption, meaning assignment, adaptation, and translation in local contexts;
investigate how management concepts travel between various local contexts (e.g., states, industries, fields) and how they expand to other spheres of economy (e.g., private/public/nonprofit sector) and life (e.g., rational choice of religious identity or family status);
go beyond the dichotomy of global-local to introduce various levels through which global themes diffuse and get translated by exploring the mediating roles of corporate, ethnic, gender, religious, and other cultures;
highlight the role of knowledge entrepreneurs in these processes;
consider shifts of local power constellations that are triggered by the adoption and modification of management concepts (e.g., coalitions of actors in a field);
investigate the origin and “family tree” of globally disseminating management concepts;
focus not only on impressive waves but provide insight into the more constant, perpetual movements that shape organizational and management practice;
highlight path dependency of change and focus on bricolage;
introduce new conceptual/methodological avenues for understanding the dissemination and adaptation of management concepts.

Overall, this sub-theme intends to take advantage of the potency of the term glocalization, which envelopes the dual (and presumably contradictory) notions of commonality and variation (Robertson 1994). The focus on managerialism, which is the most universalistic and scientized of the globally-diffusing themes, allows for particularly insightful analyses of the globalization’s dual tendencies: Global models diffusing through local prisms. John W. Meyer will join the sub-theme discussions with commentary on managerialism and this duality of globalization.

References

Brunsson, N. (1989): The organization of hypocrisy, Copenhagen Business School Press.

Czarniawska, B. / Joerges, B. (1996): Travel of ideas. In: Czarniawska, B. / Sevón, G. (eds.): Translating organizational change. Walter de Gruyter: 13-48.

DiMaggio, P.J. / Powell, W.W. (1983): The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In: American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147-160.

Djelic, M-L. (1998): Exporting the American model: The postwar transformation of European business, Oxford University Press.

Dobbin, F. / Zorn, D. (2005): Corporate malfeasance and the myth of shareholder value. In: Political Power and Social Theory, 17: 179-198.

Meyer, J.W. (2002): Globalization and the expansion and standardization of management. In: Sahlin-Andersson, K./ Engwall, L. (eds.): The expansion of management knowledge, Stanford University Press: 33-44.

Meyer, R.E. (2004): Globale Managementkonzepte und lokaler Kontext. Organisationale Wertorientierung im österreichischen öffentlichen Diskurs, WUV Universitätsverlag.

Robertson, R. (1994): Globalization and glocalization. In: Journal of International Communication, 1: 33–52.

Sahlin-Andersson, K. (1996): Imitating by editing success: The construction of organizational fields. In: Czarniawska, B. / Sevón, G. (eds.): Translating organizational change, Walter de Gruyter: 69-92.

Sahlin-Andersson, K. / Engwall, L. (2002): The expansion of management knowledge: Carriers, flows and sources, Stanford University Press.

Scott, W.R. (2008): Institutions and organizations. 3^rd ed., Sage.

Snow, D.A. / Benford, R.D. (1999): Alternative types of cross-national diffusion in the social movement arena. In: della Porta, D. / Kriesi, H. / Rucht, D. (eds.): Social movements in a globalizing world. Palgrave Macmillan: 23-29.

Strang, D. / Meyer, J.W. (1994): Institutional conditions for diffusion. In: Scott, W.R. / Meyer, J.W. (eds.): Institutional environments and organizations. Structural complexity and individualism. Sage: 100-122.

Gili S. Drori is lecturer in the program on International Relations at Stanford University, USA. Her research interests include the comparative study of science and technology, social progress and rationalization, globalization, governance, and higher education. Gili is author of several books, articles, and chapters on science and development, world culture, policy regimes, and international organizations.

Markus A. Höllerer is assistant professor at WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria. His research interests are in institutional organizational theory and include, among others, changing governance structures in the private and public sector. In his current work, Markus studies the dissemination and theorization of globally available management concepts (e.g., corporate social responsibility and shareholder value), focusing on modifications these concepts are subjected to and on multiple meanings assigned to them in local contexts.

Peter Walgenbach is professor for organization, leadership and human resource management at the Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Germany. His research interests are in institutional organizational theory, structuration theory, international comparative research, and the diffusion and application of modern management concepts. Peter has published several books on management and organization as well as a considerable number of articles in edited books and international scientific journals.

20th Workshop Salzburg 2025

Register!

New Institutionalism Workshops