MADE TO FIT: HOW PRACTICES VARY AS THEY DIFFUSE · 2020-06-11 · MADE TO FIT: HOW PRACTICES VARY AS THEY DIFFUSE SHAHZAD M. ANSARI University of Cambridge PEER C. FISS University

MADE TO FIT: HOW PRACTICES VARY ASTHEY DIFFUSE

SHAHZAD M. ANSARIUniversity of Cambridge

PEER C. FISSUniversity of Southern California

EDWARD J. ZAJACNorthwestern University

We extend research on the diffusion of corporate practices by providing a frameworkfor studying practice variation during diffusion processes. Specifically, we theorizeabout how population-level mechanisms of diffusion link with organization-levelmechanisms of implementation that lead to the adaptation of practices. We alsoidentify technical, cultural, and political elements of fit (or misfit) between diffusingpractices and adopters and analyze how the process of attaining fit across theseelements can trigger different patterns of adaptation.

An extensive body of research on the diffusionof practices has significantly enhanced our un-derstanding of “how things—ideas and prac-tices—get from here to there” (Katz, 1999: 145),largely by developing parsimonious modelsthat draw on economic (e.g., Banerjee, 1992;Bikhchandani, Hirshleifer, & Welch, 1998;Lieberman & Asaba, 2006) and sociologicalmechanisms (e.g., Abrahamson, 1996; Strang &Macy, 2001; Strang & Meyer, 1993). In most of thisresearch scholars have typically assumed apopulation-level perspective, emphasizing inter-organizational conditions. For instance, eco-nomic models tend draw on informational argu-ments, pointing to a growing level of generalinformation about the value of a practice in af-fecting diffusion decisions, whereas sociologi-cal models have tended to use more reputa-tional arguments that relate to growingpressures for social conformity. Taken together,these bodies of literature offer a variety of ra-tional, boundedly rational, and social explana-tions for the adoption and diffusion of practices

across time and space (Greve, 1998; Terlaak &Gong, 2008).

Furthermore, most of this work has focused onthe diffusion episode of the practice at the inter-organization level—that is, the adoption deci-sion. Given this interorganizational focus, priormodels have usually made certain simplifyingassumptions about the homogeneity of diffusingpractices across time and space, treating themas essentially invariant rather than mutating.This approach, while parsimonious, has led to arelative neglect of theoretical attention to prac-tice variation at the organization level (Cool,Dierickx, & Szulanski, 1997), with little attentionto issues of adaptation and internal variety indiffusing practices as they wind their waythrough organizations (e.g., Mamman, 2002;O’Mahoney, 2007).

Thus, although existing models in diffusiontheory have offered considerable insight intowhy practices are initially adopted by an orga-nization, they typically do not delve deeply intowhat happens to such practices during and afteradoption (Wolfe, 1994; Zeitz, Mittal, & McAulay,1999). We see this as an important omission,since management practices often cannot beadopted by user organizations as “off-the-shelf”solutions. Instead, we suggest that diffusingpractices are likely to evolve during the imple-mentation process, requiring custom adapta-tion, domestication, and reconfiguration to

We gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments andsuggestions of former associate editor Pamela Tolbert, threeanonymous reviewers, Paul Adler, Ed Carberry, Bill Cooper,Marie-Laure Djelic, Henrich Greve, Stefan Jonsson, MarkKennedy, and participants at the 20th EGOS Colloquium,Queen’s University, Northwestern University, and the Orga-nization & Strategy Workshop at the University of SouthernCalifornia.

� Academy of Management Review2010, Vol. 35, No. 1, 67–92.

67Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

make them meaningful and suitable within spe-cific organizational contexts (Robertson, Swan,& Newell, 1996; Strang & Kim, 2004).

To be sure, some scholars have paid attentionto the adaptation of diffusing practices, wherethe transfer and diffusion of management prac-tices among different local contexts consistof translation, coconstruction, and editing activ-ities in different cultural and social contexts andmay lead to divergence and variability in prac-tices that are being adopted, enacted, andadapted (Johnson & Hagstrom, 2005; Sahlin-Andersson, 1996; Westphal, Gulati, & Shortell,1997; Zilber, 2006). For instance, Zbaracki (1998)examined the relationship between the rhetoricand reality of total quality management (TQM)in use and showed how the practice was so-cially constructed and adapted inside differentorganizations. Similarly, Frenkel (2005) foundthat scientific management and human re-sources models imported from the United Statesinto Israel were reinterpreted by the state, pri-vate employers, and a labor union to be more inline with prevalent macrocultural discourse.

While such mostly case-oriented studies (e.g.,Czarniawska & Sevon, 2005; Johnson & Hag-strom, 2005; Morris & Lancaster, 2006; Saka, 2004)offer rich insights into how carriers and hostscoconstruct management practices diffusinginto new settings, they remain quite discon-nected from the more parsimonious models usedin large-scale studies of innovation diffusion(Abrahamson, 2006). Indeed, the dearth of at-tempts to bridge interorganizational mecha-nisms of diffusion with intraorganizational im-plementation and adaptation is striking,leading us to propose that an enhanced under-standing of the diffusion of corporate practicescan be achieved by systematically analyzinghow and why practices are adapted by organi-zations over the course of the diffusion process.More specifically, we offer a theoretical frame-work for analyzing how practices vary as theydiffuse and are implemented. We begin by pro-posing two fundamental dimensions to explainvariation in the ways in which diffusing prac-tices are implemented: fidelity and extensive-ness.

Furthermore, we argue that the specific pat-terns of practice adaptation will depend on thefit between the diffusing practice and the adopt-ing organization. Drawing on Nadler and Tush-man’s (1980) work, we define fit of diffusing prac-

tices as the degree to which the characteristicsof a practice are consistent with the (perceived)needs, objectives, and structure of an adoptingorganization. While this notion of fit is generallyseen as self-evident, the way in which differenttypes of fit affect the adoption and adaptationprocess is much less well understood. We there-fore suggest that the diffusion process acrosstime and across adopters should be assessed asan issue of dynamic fit between practice andadopter and that this fit is influenced by techni-cal, cultural, and political factors. We then positthat different forms of fit and misfit will triggerdifferent patterns of practice adaptation andthat this understanding will allow us to predictboth the timing (i.e., early versus late) and theform of practice adaptation by an organization.By developing a parsimonious framework of theadaptation of diffusing practices that placesspecial emphasis on the interaction betweencharacteristics of the diffusing practice andthose of the adopter, we aspire to unify andreconcile divergent strands of the literature ad-dressing practice diffusion.

Indeed, we believe our model carries substan-tive implications for those interested in howpractices spread. Prior research has to a largeextent focused not on variation but on diffusionspeed, including identifying and measuringrates of diffusion and the timing of adoption—that is, early versus late adopters (e.g., Rogers,1995). The motivation for this emphasis was thatpolicy makers and economists wanted to under-stand how ”progressive” innovations couldspread faster in an economy and, implicitly,how ”laggards” could be convinced, thus accel-erating the diffusion process (Abrahamson, 1991;Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). The underlyingmodel of the practice, however, is one of rela-tively uniform and invariant practices.

We contend, however, that developing agreater understanding as to when and howpractices change as they diffuse is highly rele-vant for several reasons. Two main motivationsrelevant to policy makers are detecting and ex-ploiting variation, on the one hand, and sup-pressing variation, on the other hand. Regard-ing the first motivation, improving the outcomesof a diffusion process will frequently requireknowing where and when enhanced versions ofa practice are likely to appear. In this way theinsights of experimentation can be detected anddisseminated to other potential adopters. Alter-

68 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

natively, policy makers may be interested inassuring consistent and faithful implementationof a practice, so knowing where variation islikely to emerge is therefore useful in aidingattempts to suppress deviation from a preferredmodel. Accordingly, developing a theoreticalframework consisting of technical, cultural, andpolitical parameters that provides an enhancedunderstanding of variation in the diffusion ofpractices, as we endeavor to provide in thisstudy, can assist in localized and targetedsearches for innovative practices and can alsoallow for more timely interventions, includingthe possible modification of these parametersfrom policy makers eager to sponsor particularversions of practices deemed more desirable forbusiness and society.

We proceed by discussing the theoreticalmechanisms proposed in previous approachesto diffusion, and we then introduce our notion ofadaptation (where diffusion meets implementa-tion) and its dimensions. Next, we introduce theconcept of fit as a crucial intermediate mecha-nism for understanding diffusion processes andshow how various degrees of fit across multipledimensions result in different degrees of likelyadaptation by recipient organizations duringvarious stages of the diffusion process.1 We con-clude by discussing the implications of our ap-proach for both the study of practice adaptationand diffusion.

PRIOR MODELS OF PRACTICE ADOPTION

The literature on the diffusion of practicesamong corporations—identified as one of thekey mechanisms in the study of organizations(e.g., Davis & Marquis, 2005)—is currently char-acterized by two sets of explanations regarding

the processes leading to adoption. The first setof explanations has its roots in the economicliterature and builds on the rational actormodel. It presents arguably the most dominantperspective in the diffusion of innovation litera-ture (Rogers, 1995; Sturdy, 2004), conceiving ofadopters as rational actors that scan their envi-ronment and make efficient choices. In keepingwith Strang and Macy’s (2001) terminology, werefer to these explanations as rational accounts.

The second set of explanations is somewhatmore eclectic but overall more closely associ-ated with a sociological perspective and a focuson the social embeddedness of actors. Theseexplanations have been variously called “fadsand fashion perspectives” (Abrahamson, 1991),“contagion accounts” (Strang & Macy, 2001), oran “institutional perspective” (Jonsson, 2002;Sturdy, 2004). However, none of these labelsseems ideal, since each tends to exclude othersignificant aspects of a more sociological per-spective. To recognize this eclecticism, and atthe same time juxtapose it with more economi-cally based rational accounts, we refer to thissecond cluster of explanations as social ac-counts. We discuss each in more detail below.

Rational Accounts

Emerging from the field of economics, rationalaccounts have an immediate intuitive appeal,since they focus on the presumed economic ben-efits that result from the adoption of a practice.In fact, the connection between cost effective-ness and the likelihood of diffusion is one of themost widely reported findings in the innovationdiffusion literature (Rogers, 1995; Strang & Macy,2001).

Rational accounts tend to come in two ver-sions. The first, focusing on evolutionary pro-cesses, suggests that selection forces weed outthe weaker performers who fail to adopt an ef-ficient practice (Katz & Shapiro, 1987; Mansfield,1961). In the second, optimizing version, effectiveinnovations are adopted by rational decisionmakers who make the choices that lead to thediffusion of beneficent innovations (Chandler,1962; Teece, 1980; Williamson, 1979). In bothforms a key mechanism explaining increasinglevels of adoption pertains to information cas-cades (e.g., Banerjee, 1992; Bikhchandani et al.,1992, 1998), where adoption processes build mo-mentum as firms use observed behaviors of

1 In conceptualizing adaptation processes, one can con-ceive of four scenarios of adaptation: (1) little or no change inpractice or in organization, leading to essentially “as is”adoption; (2) change in practice but not in organization,leading to adaptation of the practice; (3) change in organi-zation but not in practice, leading to adaptation of the orga-nization; and (4) change in both organization and practice,leading to coevolution or mutual adaptation. Although therewill always be some degree of mutual adaptation (Van deVen, 1986), our intent here is to examine how practices varyas they diffuse. Thus, we focus on the adaptation of practicesduring the diffusion process, rather than on processes oforganizational change (e.g., Greve & Taylor, 2000; Leonard-Barton, 1988).

2010 69Ansari, Fiss, and Zajac

early adopters, presumably with more accurateinformation about the practice, to update theirown value expectations regarding a diffusingpractice (Terlaak & Gong, 2008). In such modelsimitation follows from a heuristic of socialproof—that is, firms infer from the actions ofother firms what constitutes appropriate actionsto minimize search costs and to avoid the costsof experimentation (Rao, Greve, & Davis, 2001).With greater diffusion more information aboutthe utility of a practice reduces its associateduncertainty and, thus, the risk of adoption,speeding up the diffusion process. However,some rational models also acknowledge that in-formation cascades may lead to herding behav-ior, which occurs “when it is optimal for an in-dividual, having observed the actions of thoseahead of him, to follow the behavior of thepreceding individual without regard to hisown information” (Bikhchandani et al., 1992:994). Such information cascades may form par-ticularly fast when early adopters are high-status individuals or are perceived to havespecial expertise, leading other firms to imi-tate them, even if their private informationindicates that adoption is not beneficial (Ban-erjee, 1992).

Social Accounts

Whereas rational accounts tend to focus on agrowing level of general information about thevalue of a diffusing innovation, social accountstend to emphasize growing levels of pressuretoward social conformity. Specifically, social ac-counts tend to assume that organizations fre-quently imitate other organizations in order toappear legitimate and that with increasing in-stitutionalization the adoption of practices istherefore often driven by a desire to appear inconformance with norms (DiMaggio & Powell,1983; Scott, 1995; Sturdy, 2004; Tolbert & Zucker,1996). By critiquing the view of adoption as theresult of rational choices, these accounts pointto the role of group pressures and emphasize thenotion that diffusing practices will frequently beinefficient or even harmful (Abrahamson, 1991;Strang & Macy, 2001).

However, efficiency does often enter into so-cial accounts in its functional role of increasingthe legitimacy of an organization. There are es-sentially weak and strong forms of this argu-ment. In the weak form, legitimacy arguments

allow for the possibility that initial adoption isdriven by economic efficiency rationales. How-ever, once a critical mass is reached, efficiencyconcerns become more and more irrelevant be-cause the adoption process is increasinglydriven by bandwagon pressures and legitimacyconcerns—that is, processes that are largely de-coupled from a practice’s technical efficiency(Tolbert & Zucker, 1983). In other words, once athreshold is crossed, efficiency concerns arereplaced by social pressures from outside stake-holders, leading organizations to adopt prac-tices with less consideration of the appropriate-ness of the practice for the particularcircumstances at hand.

In the strong form, legitimacy arguments holdthat the diffusing practice is at no time techni-cally efficient—it never employs the optimummeans for achieving its stated goal, or it mayeven be completely ineffective. However, be-cause of other factors, such as cultural compat-ibility (Soule, 1999) or the normative expecta-tions of outside stakeholders (Abrahamson,1991; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), organizationsmay still find it advisable to adopt the practiceto increase or maintain their standing in theeyes of their constituency. As a result, theseorganizations tend to imitate the models pro-moted by fashion setters or those used by theirpeers, particularly highly visible and successfulmodels.2

While providing different rationales foradoption of practices, both rational and socialaccounts of diffusion typically assume a popu-lation-level perspective, emphasizing interorgani-zational conditions—either a growing level ofgeneral information about a practice from ra-tional early adopters that can be used to infer itsvalue under uncertainty (e.g., economists’ infor-mation cascades) or growing pressures forsocial conformity once enough actors adopt acertain practice (e.g., sociologists’ institutional-ization).3 However, a key difference concerns thedurability of behaviors. In rational accounts in-formation cascades can be fragile, and new in-

2 The assumption of adoption being observable is moreplausible in established, structured industries than it is inemerging industries, where firms may not be as aware ofother players because of a lack of shared industry modelsand intermediaries (Terlaak & Gong, 2008).

3 We are grateful to former associate editor Pamela Tol-bert for providing this insight.


formation may lead to sudden reversals (Bikh-chandani et al., 1992; Lieberman & Asaba, 2006),as was seen in the rise and fall of dotcomsduring the Internet bubble. In contrast, socialaccounts suggest that once a behavior is insti-tutionalized, the social order that emerges isconsiderably more durable. Although adoptershave more latitude in adapting the practice dur-ing the preinstitutional stage, increasing insti-tutionalization and conformity pressures limitthat latitude and lead over time to considerablyless practice variation (Tolbert & Zucker, 1996).

Rational and social accounts of practice diffu-sion have unquestionably contributed to our un-derstanding of the diffusion process, and priorstudies tend to cluster on either side of these twoalternative perspectives; rational accounts typ-ically emphasize a technical imperative foradoption, and social accounts emphasize a cul-tural imperative for adoption. In line with Hin-ings and Tolbert (2008), we do not see these twoaccounts as dichotomous but, rather, as poles ona continuum, where both can explain diffusionunder different conditions.

CONSIDERING PRACTICE ADAPTATION

As we have noted, the classic diffusion modelis based on invariant practices, where passive“accepters” either accept or reject the practice(Rogers, 1995: 364). However, a closer consider-ation of the issue of implementation of the prac-tice in an organization suggests that few prac-tices, if any, come out of the diffusion processunchanged (March, 1981; Strang & Soule, 1998).We use the term adaptation4 to refer to the pro-cess by which an adopter strives to create abetter fit between an external practice and theadopter’s particular needs to increase its ”zoneof acceptance” during implementation (Lewis &Seibold, 1993; Radnor, Feller, & Rogers, 1978).This adaptation process may involve change inhow a practice is “framed” over time (Fiss &

Zajac, 2006; Green, 2004; Hirsch 1986), or it mayinvolve change in the actual implementation ofthe practice, as when different versions of thesame practice are adopted at different points inthe diffusion process (Kennedy & Fiss, 2009;Lewis & Seibold, 1993; Westphal et al., 1997). In arelated vein, researchers in the tradition ofScandinavian institutionalism (e.g., Czarniaw-ska & Joerges, 1996; Sahlin-Andersson, 1996), ac-tor-network theory (e.g., Callon, 1986; Latour,1986), and social technology transfer (Boyer,Charron, & Jurgens, 1998; Djelic, 1998; Guillen,1994; Zeitlin & Herrigel, 2000) have used theterms translation (Serres, 1982), editing (Sahlin-Andersson, 1996), transposition (Boxenbaum &Battilana, 2005), and creolization (Sahlin-Andersson & Engwall, 2002) to refer to situationswhere new ideas and practices are adapted tolocal contexts as they travel during the diffusionprocess.

As an essential aspect of the implementationprocess, adaptation is more likely to be the rulethan the exception (Whitten & Collins, 1997), andit presents a particularly intriguing issue for thestudy of diffusion processes in organizationalsettings. However, given the lack of a concep-tual framework for understanding patterns ofpractice variation across the diffusion process,adaptation of practices remains a neglectedphenomenon. As noted earlier, our position isthat synthesizing insights from studies on pop-ulation-level diffusion with an original discus-sion of the organization-level implementation ofdiffusing practices can lead to greater under-standing of adaptation processes.

To integrate prior models of practice adoptionwith work on practice adaptation and to providea framework for understanding practice adapta-tion across the diffusion process, it is necessaryto generate the relevant dimensions of practiceadaptation. To accomplish this we draw on theliterature on how knowledge is transmitted andretrieved, which is consistent with the most ba-sic notion of diffusion as the transmission ofideas (Katz, 1999). Following Yuan et al. (2005),Palazzolo, Serb, She, Su, and Contractor (2006),and Yuan, Fulk, and Monge (2007), we argue thatadaptation will involve two key dimensions: fi-delity and extensiveness.

The first dimension, which we label fidelity,relates to whether the adapted practice resem-bles or deviates in kind from the features of theprevious version of the practice as it is transmit-

4 The diffusion of innovation literature has at times usedthe term re-invention to refer to the same process of adapt-ing a diffusing innovation (Larsen & Argawalla-Rogers, 1977;Rice & Rogers, 1980; Rogers, 1995). Other terms include reori-entation and variation (Normann, 1971), corruption (Lozeau,Langley, & Denis, 2002), levels of transfer (Lillrank, 1995),alteration and optimization (Damanpour & Evan, 1984), re-configuration (Henderson & Clark, 1990; Meyer & Goes, 1988),emulation with innovation (Westney, 1987), modification(Mamman, 2002), and hybridization (Botti, 1997).


ted. While Yuan et al. (2007) have used the termaccuracy in this regard, we prefer fidelity be-cause it does not make assumptions regardingthe normative nature of the prototypical prac-tice. Fidelity is related to the scope and meaningof the practice that is being implemented andadapted in terms of how ”true” or ”distant” thisversion of the practice is compared to the previ-ous adapted versions of the practice. Thus, iflate adopters adapt a practice (more or less), it isrelative to how much the earlier adoptersadapted the practice (more or less) rather thanrelative to some original prototypical version.

The notion of a prototype is nonetheless use-ful to map the terrain of the possible variationsin an evolving practice over time. Prototypicalpractices may therefore be used to benchmarkthe fidelity of adaptation processes relative tothe original prototype, as well as relative tosubsequent versions (Lewis & Seibold, 1993).5

For instance, in the case of TQM, high-fidelityadaptation would include ensuring that a prod-uct or service had higher quality and lower ex-penses associated with it, whereas low-fidelityadaptation would emphasize one (but not theother) improvement.

The second dimension, extensiveness, as-sesses whether the degree of practice imple-mentation is greater or lesser than that of theprevious version of the practice.6 This notionbuilds on recent research that suggests adopt-ing organizations will frequently implement ei-ther less extensive versions (e.g., Westphal &Zajac, 2001) or more extensive versions (e.g.,Hays, 1996; Mooney & Lee, 1999) of a diffusingpractice. Extensiveness in adaptation thus indi-cates how far the adapted practice presents far-reaching or restricted efforts toward implemen-tation (Mamman, 2007). Therefore, the concept ofextensiveness about the ”dosage” of the prac-

tice being implemented—low or high—is closerto the notion of scale of implementation. Forinstance, e-business implementation may varyfrom being selectively implemented to being im-plemented across the entire span of the organi-zation’s structure and business processes—fromthe procurement department to the field salesforce to supply chain coordination (Wu et al.,2003).

In short, practices are high fidelity but notextensive when they are truer to the previousversion—but not comprehensively implemented.Practices are extensive but low fidelity if compre-hensively implemented—but not true to the previ-ous version.

Illustrating our arguments, Figure 1 shows thetwo dimensions of practice variability, as wellas the patterns of adaptation associated withthem. The top right corner is characterized byhigh levels of both fidelity and extensiveness.We call this pattern “full and true” adaptation toindicate that the adapted practice is being im-plemented with greater fidelity to its prior ver-sion and also in a far-reaching manner. In thetop left corner we still find high levels of fidelityto the prior practice, but the extensiveness ofimplementation is lower. We call this pattern“low-dosage” adaptation to indicate that the ad-aptation is more aligned with the prior versionof the practice but presents a more timid effort atimplementation in terms of its scope. In the bot-tom right corner we find higher levels of exten-siveness but lower levels of fidelity. We call thispattern “tailored” adaptation, indicating thatthe adopting organization is using considerableresources to implement an extensive version of

5 At the high-fidelity end of the continuum, an extremecase might be the adoption of policies verbatim, includingtypographical errors, as documented by Walker (1969). At theother end of the continuum, adaptations may eventuallyreach a point where they bear little resemblance to theoriginal practice. Here the notion of prototypical featurescan again help in introducing threshold values to allow theresearcher to determine whether it may be more useful tospeak of a different rather than an adapted practice.

6 A term related to extensiveness is adoption intensity(Wu, Mahajan, & Balasubramanian, 2003), also referring tothe degree of implementation of a practice inside an orga-nization.

FIGURE 1Dimensions of Practice Variability and

Adaptation


the practice while also modifying the practicesubstantially, thus implementing a version thatis significantly different from its prior version.Finally, the bottom left corner is characterizedby low levels of both fidelity and extensiveness.We call this pattern “distant” adaptation to in-dicate that adaptation here deviates from theprior version, as well as being smaller in scope.

To further illustrate these dimensions of prac-tice adaptation, consider the adaptation of TQM,which has been the focus of several recent stud-ies (e.g., David & Strang, 2006; Green, Li, &Nohria, 2009; Kennedy & Fiss, 2009; Westphal etal., 1997; Zbaracki, 1998). The characteristics ofTQM include three principles: (1) customer fo-cus, (2) continuous improvement, and (3) team-work (Dean & Bowen, 1994). Prototypical imple-mentation of TQM thus includes practices basedon these principles, such as (1) customer surveysand focus groups; (2) flow charts, Pareto analy-ses, and statistical process control; and (3) team-building methods, such as role clarification andgroup feedback. Variation in the way TQM isadapted in an organization can then be as-sessed based on the fidelity and extent of TQMimplementation relative to this prototypicalform and prior versions. For instance, low-fidelity adaptation might involve deviation fromthe core principles by appropriating the practicefor political interests (e.g., Zbaracki, 1998),whereas low-extensiveness adaptation mightinvolve implementation of TQM practices but inless extensive forms (e.g. Westphal et al., 1997).

In sum, the two dimensions of practice fidelityand extensiveness provide the foundation for aframework that allows us to connect the richwork on practice adaptation to overall models ofdiffusion patterns. To the extent that adaptationsignifies differences, fidelity and extensivenesscapture change in kind versus change in degree,respectively. Before moving to make predictionsregarding when we will observe different pat-terns of adaptation, we first need to consider thereasons for adapting diffusing practices. It is tothese issues of fit between the practice and theadopting organization that we now turn.

ADAPTATION AS A RESPONSE TOA LACK OF FIT

A key reason why organizations adapt diffus-ing practices is that the characteristics of thepractice do not fit with the adopter organiza-

tion’s characteristics.7 However, prior researchhas mainly focused on demand-side factors,such as the characteristics of adopters, and hasplaced far less emphasis on supply-side factors,such as the characteristics of the diffusing prac-tices. We believe that such an approach canonly partially succeed; both demand-side andsupply-side characteristics need to be consid-ered (Attewell, 1992; Brown, 1981; Cool et al.,1997). Furthermore, rather than considering ei-ther demand-side or supply-side factors in iso-lation, we seek to extend the existing literatureby theorizing—at the intersection of supply anddemand—about how the characteristics of dif-fusing practices interact with the characteristicsof adopters. This allows us to develop further theconcept of compatibility or “goodness of fit” be-tween the attributes of a diffusing item and theattributes of adopters (Katz, 1999).

Fortunately, the strategy literature and orga-nization literature have extensively consideredthe concept of organizational fit (e.g., Drazin &Van de Ven, 1985; Venkatraman, 1989). We followNadler and Tushman’s definition of fit as “thedegree to which the needs, demands, goals, ob-jectives, and/or structures of one component areconsistent with the needs, demands, goals, ob-jectives, and/or structures of another compo-nent” (1980: 45). While traditional discussions offit have tended to emphasize the static matchingof organizations to a particular context variable,more recent advances have accentuated how fitcan also be conceptualized dynamically andmultidimensionally (Zajac et al., 2000). It is thisnotion of dynamic, multidimensional fit that weuse here.

So far we have argued that both demand-sideand supply-side attributes matter in practice ad-aptation. But how do our arguments speak to thedynamic nature of the diffusion process—particularly to differences between early and

7 Fit, of course, is a continuous rather than binary variableand, thus, will always be measured in degrees. Furthermore,we are not assuming that adaptation of a practice will al-ways be triggered by a lack of fit or misfit between a practiceand an organization. Adaptation may also occur within anorganization even when it is not efficient to adapt, eitherbecause of social pressures as organizations observe others’behaviors or because of coercive pressure imposed by pow-erful entities. Furthermore, fit may exist even under inac-tion—a special case that is not our focus here (Zajac, Kraatz,& Bresser, 2000). Thus, adaptation (or the lack thereof) maybe characterized by both Type I and Type II errors.


later adopters? Who would be more likely toexperience misfit during the diffusion process?

Rational accounts point to the importance ofuncertainty and associated mechanisms oflearning (e.g., Banerjee, 1992; Bikhchandani etal., 1998). Here early adopters face greater un-certainty regarding the utility and characteris-tics of the practice. Accordingly, misfit is morelikely to occur among early adopters, when lessis known about the diffusing practice. Rationalarguments suggest that early adopters are morelikely to find misfit during implementation andto adapt practices, thus leading to more adap-tation early on when less is known about thepractice. However, over time the uncertainty re-garding the utility and characteristics of thepractice decreases as late adopters are able toinfer the value of the practice from the accumu-lated stock of early adopters’ prior decisions(Terlaak & Gong, 2008). Accordingly, later adopt-ers may be more able to avoid practices with alow fit for their needs. This also implies that, inrational accounts, the technical characteristicsof individual adopters (such as size) may be-come better predictors of adoption later in theprocess, whereas social characteristics (such assusceptibility to conformity pressures) may be-come less useful predictors.

In contrast, social accounts emphasize confor-mity pressures and a desire to look legitimate tooutside constituents (e.g., Abrahamson, 1991;DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Tolbert & Zucker, 1983).In these accounts early adopters have little in-centive to adopt practices that do not fit sincethey do not perceive conformity pressures. How-ever, as conformity pressures mount, lateradopters will be forced to adopt regardless oftheir needs, leading to a greater likelihood ofmisfit among later adopters. In opposition torational accounts, social accounts thus also sug-gest that the technical characteristics of actorsbecome less reliable predictors of adoption laterin the process once an innovation gains legiti-macy, whereas social characteristics becomebetter predictors.

Both rational and social accounts of diffusiontherefore suggest variation between early andlate adopters due to the interaction betweenpopulation-level and organization-level phe-nomena. However, because of the respectivemechanisms invoked, both accounts have differ-ent implications for when misfits of adoptedpractices are more likely to occur. Furthermore,

there are also integrated models that draw onboth rational and social accounts in explainingdiffusion. Probably the most important modelthat integrates both rational and social argu-ments is that of Tolbert and Zucker (1983), whoargued that early adopters are mainly con-cerned with the utility of the practice whereaslater adopters are primarily concerned with con-formity pressures in a rational to ceremonialshift. However, David and Strang (2006), in theirstudy of TQM, suggested a more complex insti-tutional trajectory, with the practice swingingback toward its technical foundations in the midand late 1990s and with its larger institutionaltrajectory moving from rational to ceremonial torational again. More recently, Kennedy and Fiss(2009) offered an integrated diffusion model thatsuggests that both economic and social motiva-tions may, in fact, work in parallel and may bothbe present among early and later adopters. Notethat both integrated models, by combining ra-tional and social arguments, suggest that misfitwill occur among both early and later adopters,albeit for different reasons. It would thereforeappear that at least the potential for misfit isgiven across the whole life cycle of the diffusionprocess.

FORMS OF FIT AND PATTERNS OF PRACTICEADAPTATION

Adaptation in response to a lack of fit presentsa key issue in the diffusion literature, yet thespecific relationship between fit and adaptationremains largely unexamined. Here we seek toextend the existing literature by theorizingabout how diffusing practices interact with thecharacteristics of adopters, resulting in differentadaptation patterns. To conceptualize fit wedraw on Oliver’s (1992) categorization of factorsinfluencing organizational practices, and weidentify three forms of fit that affect adaptationprocesses: (1) technical fit, (2) cultural fit, and (3)political fit (see also Sturdy, 2004, for differentperspectives on the adoption of managementpractices). Specifically, we argue that technical,cultural, and political incompatibilities triggerdifferent mechanisms and patterns of adapta-tion on the part of adopting organizations. In-deed, innovative practices tend to vary in theforms of misfit that they typically engender,therefore affecting diffusion through corre-spondingly different mechanisms for commu-


nicating interorganizational variation or con-formity. In conceptualizing the three forms of fit,we adopt a boundedly rational perspective(Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992), where adoptersare “cognitive misers” rather than “cognitivedopes” (Rao et al., 2001), where organizationsrely on “cognitive shortcuts” (Tversky & Kahne-man, 1974) in making adaptation decisions, andwhere adaptation is both a rational and socialprocess.8 Accordingly, for each of the three formsof fit, a poor fit as experienced by an adopterduring ongoing assessments and feedbacks (ei-ther in the face of various crises—e.g., employeeresistance and dissatisfaction levels—or withevidence of mounting performance problems)will make implementation of an unmodifiedpractice more costly and, thus, likely to result ineither adaptation of the diffusing practice or itseventual abandonment. Table 1 provides anoverview of supply-side practice characteristicsand demand-side characteristics of adoptersand their contexts.

Technical Fit

By technical fit we mean the degree to whichthe characteristics of a practice are compatiblewith technologies already in use by potentialadopters. On the supply side, practice-level fac-tors relate to the diffusing practice’s technolog-ical foundation and characteristics (Rogers,1995; Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). On the demand-side, organization-level factors affecting techni-cal fit include the recipient organization’s inno-vativeness (Damanpour, 1991), technologicalbase (Adler & Shenhar, 1990), and absorptivecapacity—that is, “the ability of a firm to recog-nize the value of new, external information, as-similate it, and apply it to commercial ends”

(Cohen & Levinthal, 1990: 128). For instance, re-garding the diffusion of the Six Sigma method-ology in the 1990s, one reason GE was far moresuccessful than Motorola in implementing thispractice was that it had already put in place aseries of its own technologies in quality man-agement and human performance managementquite compatible with Six Sigma. GE was thusbetter positioned than Motorola to generatevalue from the stringent processes required bythe Six Sigma methodology (Mol & Birkinshaw,2008), even though Motorola, not GE, had in-vented Six Sigma. Similarly, as the imprintingliterature has shown, the distinctive stamp of anorganization’s founding environment continuesto impact subsequent managerial decisions andthe adoption of organizational practices that areseen as congruent with inherited organizationalarrangements (Marquis, 2003; Stinchcombe,1965).

Demand-side factors may further include in-traorganization-level factors, such as technolog-ical background and experience of organization-al members and executive demographics (e.g.,Palmer, Jennings, & Zhou, 1993; Wejnert, 2002;Zeitz et al., 1999). Finally, fit may also be affectedby supraorganization-level factors, including in-dustry-level phenomena, such as technologicalstandards and regulatory regimes (Farrell & Sa-loner, 1985) and maturity levels (e.g., Behrman &Wallender, 1976), as well as societal-level phe-nomena, such as the degree of technologicaladvancement, infrastructure, and educational,financial, and regulatory institutions (Wejnert,2002).

Adaptation and Technical Fit

As we have argued, technical fit depends onthe alignment between practice characteristicsand organizational characteristics. In the caseof a low degree of fit, organizations will aim toreduce the costs of implementation, regardlessof the original reasons for adoption. Reducingtechnical misfit thus involves the assimilationof practices into existing organizational sys-tems.

We see the availability of knowledge about adiffusing practice as a key mechanism influenc-ing adaptation efforts. Assuming that decisionmakers in organizational settings are generallyrisk averse and that reliable information on theeffectiveness of a new practice is scarce, the

8 In a preadoption setting firms make their choice underuncertainty, based on some expected practice value that isvoid of any implementation experience. However, postadop-tion, firms may have higher inferential accuracy based oninformation on the specificities of practice value that theygather through implementation of the practice and/orthrough vicarious learning from the postadoption behaviorsof other referent firms (Rao et al., 2001; Terlaak & Gong, 2008).They may then adapt or even abandon a practice (we aregrateful to an anonymous AMR reviewer for this insight).However, uncertainty may persist even postadoption, andadaptation—warranted or not—may simply be an imitativeresponse to external social pressures as opposed to a delib-erate or purposeful activity.


implementation of a new practice or technologywill frequently proceed cautiously and incre-mentally (Mooney & Lee, 1999; Rice & Rogers,1980). Particularly, if the uncertainty surround-ing the practice is high and adopters are unableto reduce misfit and increase the practice’s zoneof acceptance, early adopters are likely to avoidexperimentation and adopt truer or high-fidelityversions of the new practice. However, adapta-tion efforts can intensify as the practice estab-lished by early adopters becomes more elabo-rate in its specification (Glick & Hays, 1991;Hays, 1996), with more details and more ver-sions, leading to greater variety and lower fidel-ity. This view suggests a process that is thereverse of conventional accounts of institution-alization, with practices becoming increasingly

adapted and customized during the diffusionprocess (David & Strang, 2006).

For instance, Sine, Haveman, and Tolbert(2005), in their analysis of the independentpower sector in the United States, showed thatorganizations over time adopted newer and risk-ier technologies rather than more establishedtechnologies with the development of varioustypes of institutions. Similarly, early adoptersused just-in-time (JIT) production systems in astricter sense—as a way to control the pace ofproduction (going from a ”push” to a ”pull” sys-tem, thus allowing a drastic reduction in inven-tory). In contrast, later adopters increasinglymodified JIT and increased its scope, so it even-tually developed into ”big JIT”— “a broad, holis-tic, strategic approach for eliminating waste

TABLE 1Supply- and Demand-Side Characteristics by Level of Analysis

FitCharacteristics

Level of Analysis

Supply Side Demand Side

Practice Intraorganizational Organizational Supraorganizational

Technicalcharacteristics

Technological foundationand characteristicsembodied by thepractice

Individual’s backgroundand experience,education level,technical orientation

Organizational absorptivecapacity, technologicalbase, innovativeness,level of sophistication oftechnologies and systemsalready in use

Technological standardsand regulatoryregimes, professionalbodies, degree oftechnologicaladvancement,infrastructure,financial andregulatory institutions,educational systems

Culturalcharacteristics

Cultural characteristicssuch as cultural valuesand meaningstructures embodied bythe practice

Beliefs, values, andpreferences about theappropriateness ofthe work practice

Organizationalculture—innovative orclosed, values and beliefs

Norms, beliefs, andvalues of industryassociations andregional clusters;macroculturaldiscourse; culturalicons; dominantinstitutional logic

Politicalcharacteristics

Normative claims,political “loadings,”controversialassociations embodiedby the practice

Interests, relativepower, and agendasof organizationalmembers

Formal and informal powerstructures and ruleswithin an organization,resource dependencies,differential positions insocial networks, dominantcoalitions

Political settlements;union agreements;governmentregulations; types andcharacter of politicalsystems; labor marketpolicies; legalsystems; degree ofpolitical freedom;national policies suchas distributingconcessions andrepressions to variouspolitical, corporate,and social groups


and improving customer service” (Klassen,2000: 97).

In sum, as uncertainty decreases and knowl-edge about the practice increases, late adoptersare exposed to a wider range of possibilitiesregarding the implementation of a practiceand—with more inferential accuracy—are lessrestricted in their adaptation efforts. Accord-ingly, later adopters are more likely to developincreasingly divergent lower-fidelity versions ofthe practice in order to reduce misfit. We restatethe above arguments in the following proposi-tion.

Proposition 1: When adopters experi-ence low technical fit between thepractice and the organization, earlyadopters will implement higher-fidel-ity versions whereas later adopterswill implement lower-fidelity versionsof the practice.

At the same time, mechanisms of limitedknowledge and uncertainty reduction also influ-ence the effect of technical misfit on practiceextensiveness. Since new practices are fre-quently not well understood at the beginning ofthe diffusion process, early adopters are re-stricted in their ability to reduce misfit and,thus, are likely to implement not only truer butalso less extensive versions of a given practice.Later in the diffusion process, when uncertaintydiminishes and there is greater knowledgeabout the effectiveness of the practice, we ex-pect implementation of more extensive versions.The greater availability of information about thepractice over time therfore allows later adoptersto implement more extensive versions of thenew practice (Glick & Hays, 1991; Hays, 1996;Mooney & Lee, 1999). The diffusion mechanismsuggested by this process, hence, is one of un-certainty reduction, where early adopters havelimited knowledge about the innovation and en-gage in rather limited implementation of a rel-atively small set of basic features, whereas lateradopters with more information are able to im-plement increasingly extensive versions.

Proposition 2: When adopters experi-ence low technical fit between thepractice and the organization, earlyadopters will implement less exten-sive versions whereas later adopters

will implement more extensive ver-sions of the practice.

In combination, a lack of technical fit suggestsa pattern of low-dosage adaptation among earlyadopters and a pattern of tailored adaptationamong later adopters. Figure 2a shows how this

FIGURE 2Patterns of Practice Adaptation


shift from early to later adopters maps onto thedimensions of adaptation described earlier.

Cultural Fit

By cultural fit we mean the degree to whichthe characteristics of a diffusing practice arecompatible with the cultural values, beliefs, andpractices of potential adopters. New practicesand ideas do not diffuse into a cultural void but,rather, into a preexisting cultural universe thatdelineates the roles and responsibilities of itsrespective actors and the boundaries of appro-priate behavior. The concept of cultural fit hasinformed anthropologically oriented researchsince the early twentieth century (e.g., Boas,1925; Lowie, 1914; Spier, 1921), and it was alsopart of the early program regarding the diffu-sion of innovations (Katz, Hamilton, & Levin,1963; Rogers, 1995). However, cultural fit gener-ally has played a more peripheral role in stud-ies of the diffusion of organizational practices(Kedia & Bhagat, 1988: 559). Indeed, the relativeinattention to the idea of cultural fit led Lopes(1999) to call for more attention to the symbolicbehavior and repertoire of adopters.9

On the supply side, practice-level factors referto the cultural characteristics of the diffusingpractice or “cultural object”—specifically, to themeaning structures and cultural values thepractice embodies (Griswold, 1987). On the de-mand side, organization-level factors includethe values and beliefs prevalent in adopter or-ganizations. Examples here include corporatecultures—values, beliefs, communication styles,mission, and philosophical orientation of the or-ganizations—that impact receptivity to a prac-tice, such as the acceptability of same-sex do-mestic partner benefits (Briscoe & Safford, 2008;Creed, Scully, & Austin, 2002). At the intraorga-nization level relevant factors refer to individualtraits, such as beliefs, values, and preferencesabout the appropriateness of the work practice.Supraorganization-level factors include indus-try-level phenomena, such as the industry’sdominant logic (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986) and thenorms, beliefs, and values of industry associa-tions and regional clusters, as well as society-level phenomena, such as whether cultures are

individualistic or egalitarian (Bhagat, Kedia,Harveston, & Triandis, 2002) and macroculturaldiscourse reflected by best practice awards andcertifications and by celebrity speakers andCEOs—cultural icons like Jack Welch or SteveJobs (Zeitz et al., 1999).

For instance, Hunter (2000) found significantdifferences in the organizational implementa-tion of such innovative work practices as the“self-managed team,” based both on the indus-try sector they operated in and whether theywere manufacturing or service establishments.Similarly, since quality circles (QCs) were seenas an imported Japanese practice at odds withthe U.S. cultural value of individualism andAmerican corporate culture—for instance, thesmall role of foremen and cohesive workgroups,adversarial management labor relations, andthe hegemonic position of top management—there was little coherent attempt within organi-zations to promote QCs. Instead, American man-agers and consultants developed a simplified,context-independent notion of the QC that fitAmerican notions of “participatory manage-ment” (Strang & Kim, 2004; Zeitz et al., 1999).

Adaptation and Cultural Fit

In contrast to technical misfit, cultural misfitsuggests a somewhat different pattern of adap-tation. One strain of research on cultural trans-fer has emphasized the selection process, em-ploying a “rational shopper” metaphor (Whyte,1968). However, as Westney (1987) pointed out,this metaphor does not do justice to the amountof adaptation that frequently takes place. Wesuggest that adaptation in response to culturalmisfit is better addressed by the idea of the“cultural entrepreneur” (DiMaggio, 1992) whouses culture as a “toolkit” (Swidler, 1986) andadapts cultural objects to make them useful inrelation to local cultural expectations. Particu-larly relevant here are adaptations that over-come a cultural misfit by naming and position-ing the innovation (Hirsch, 1986; Rogers, 1995).While the availability of knowledge is the keyfactor influencing responses to a lack of techni-cal fit, we expect conformity pressures to be theprimary mechanism affecting responses to alack of cultural fit.

During initial stages of the diffusion process,conformity pressures are essentially absentsince models for conformity have not yet

9 Hirsch’s (1986) and Hays’ (1996) articles are exceptions inwhich the authors paid more attention to cultural fit.


emerged. Accordingly, early adopters have con-siderably more latitude to experiment with apractice, define it, label it, and adapt it to theirlocal needs, implementing it in a manner thatworks for them. However, later in the diffusionprocess, when established models emerge andconformity pressures increase, the ability of thelate adopters to adapt and reduce misfit will berestricted. This also implies that cultural misfitis more likely to persist during the latter stagesof the diffusion process, since later adopters feelrestrained in their ability to adapt the practiceand thus implement truer or high-fidelity ver-sions of the practice. Accordingly, once the newinnovation has been sufficiently modified by thecultural entrepreneur to make it acceptable andit develops a halo of social validation, subse-quent diffusion will largely result in the spreadof a culturally legitimated and institutionalizedmodel (Tolbert & Zucker 1996), leading to con-straints on the ability of late adopters to modifythe innovation (e.g., Tolbert & Zucker 1983). Be-cause of legitimacy concerns, late adoptershave fewer ”degrees of freedom” to adapt apractice, even if they experience misfit, and withincreasing institutionalization one is likely tosee less variation in practices (Tolbert & Zucker,1996).

For instance, in their study of the diffusion ofTQM diffusion, Westphal et al. (1997) arguedthat early adopters adapted and customizedTQM practices while later adopters conformedto the normative patterns of practices intro-duced by these early adopters. Thus, we proposethat the pattern of adaptation in response tocultural misfit will lead to considerable adapta-tion by early adopters who manipulate the prac-tice’s meaning and develop culturally legiti-mate models, followed by the diffusion of thesemodels in largely unchanged form by lateradopters. Restated as a proposition, we offer thefollowing.

Proposition 3: When adopters experi-ence low cultural fit between the char-acteristics of the practice and theorganization, early adopters will im-plement lower-fidelity versionswhereas later adopters will imple-ment higher-fidelity versions of thepractice.

However, while later adopters will engage inless redefinition of the practice because of con-

formity pressures that come to define the cul-tural meaning and acceptable form of a prac-tice, misfit will nevertheless affect the extent oftheir practice implementation. Mechanisms ofconformity pressures suggest a different patternregarding the effect of cultural misfit on practiceextensiveness. Since early adopters are able toreduce misfit, they are more likely to implementthe practice more extensively. With conformitypressures less powerful during initial stages,there is a reduced need for and benefit from lessextensive implementation or decoupling.

In contrast, late adopters will be more re-stricted in their ability to modify practices andmay therefore implement less extensive ver-sions of the practice to reduce the cost of misfit.For instance, Kennedy and Fiss (2009) found thatlater adopters who aimed to avoid social lossesimplemented less extensive versions of TQM.Similar arguments are suggested by a logic ofdecoupling,10 where implementation is sym-bolic rather than substantive since organiza-tions may engage in ceremonial implementa-tion and not integrate the practice within theorganization, aiming to show compliance to-ward external observers while hiding noncon-formity (e.g., Boxenbaum & Jonsson, 2008; Els-bach & Sutton, 1992; Meyer & Rowan, 1977;Westphal & Zajac, 1994). Later adopters who feelcompelled to adopt a practice because of con-formity pressures will thus be more likely toimplement less extensive versions of the prac-tice. This suggests the following proposition.

Proposition 4: When adopters experi-ence low cultural fit between the char-acteristics of the practice and the or-ganization, early adopters willimplement more extensive versionswhereas later adopters will imple-ment less extensive versions of thepractice.

These arguments about cultural fit suggest apattern that is the inverse of that for technical

10 Decoupling here refers more to “surface-level” or cere-monial (less extensive) implementation than to actively “re-working” or modifying the practice to fit with the organiza-tion. However, it is possible that the adopted practice beingdecoupled during implementation may be qualitatively dif-ferent from the previous version of the practice (low fidelity)and that decoupling might also entail a change in meaningof the practice.


fit, with tailored adaptation among early adopt-ers and low-dosage adaptation among lateradopters. Figure 2b again shows how these dif-ferences among early and later adopters maponto the two dimensions of adaptation.

Political Fit

By political fit we mean the degree to whichthe implicit or explicit normative characteristicsof a diffusing practice are compatible with theinterests and agendas of potential adopters.Clearly, many diffusing practices are not “neu-tral” entities; rather, they come loaded with nor-mative theories about the world that may or maynot be in line with the theories and values of thepotential adopters. While rational and social ac-counts of the diffusion of practices tend to em-phasize the relevance of technological and cul-tural issues, both sets of accounts are largelysilent on how diffusing practices may affect thebalance of power and interests in adopting or-ganizations.

Yet this neglects the fact that organizationsare inherently political arenas in which strug-gles over diverging interests take place (Cyert &March, 1963; Davis & Thompson, 1994) and whereadoption of a specific practice may have signif-icant consequences regarding the allocation ofpower and resources. Attention to political fac-tors reintroduces issues of competition andstrategizing between interest groups for power,authority, and leadership (Carlile, 2004; Drory &Romm, 1990; Fligstein, 1996; Greenwood & Hin-ings, 1996; Mayes & Allen, 1977) into the study ofdiffusion—themes that have largely been ne-glected in the diffusion literature. The ”political”label we use here thus includes not just coerciveelements but also the norms, power structures,and agendas of potential adopters, where orga-nizations are viewed as a coalition-based polit-ical system (Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992; Pfeffer,1981).

On the supply side, practice-level factors arethe implicit or explicit normative claims the dif-fusing item explicitly embodies. Some diffusingpractices are more controversial because oftheir specific characteristics; examples here in-clude what Mooney and Lee refer to as “moralitypolicies”—that is, policies that “regulate behav-ior to validate basic values that are not univer-sally held in a polity” (1999: 81), such as childlabor (Khan, Munir, & Willmott, 2007), alcohol

use, pornography, or the death penalty (e.g.,Mooney & Lee, 1995, 1999; Tatalovich, Smith, &Bobic, 1994). Other examples of items that ex-plicitly embody normative claims include stake-holder laws (Monks & Minow, 2001), shareholdervalue management (Fiss & Zajac, 2004), domes-tic partner benefits (Briscoe & Safford, 2008;Creed et al., 2002), and corporate governancemechanisms such as “golden parachutes” forexecutives (Davis & Greve, 1997).

On the demand side, organization-level fac-tors include formal and informal power struc-tures, coalitions, and resource dependenciesthat may trigger political strategizing and influ-ence how innovative management practices arereceived by the organization (e.g., Fligstein,1985; Lounsbury, 2002; Mamman, 2002; Mar-quette, 1981; Tolbert & Zucker, 1983). Powerfulinterest groups may block the adoption of cer-tain aspects of technically feasible innovations.For instance, Knights and McCabe (1999) pro-vided an in-depth analysis of power, politicalmachinations, and resistance in a major U.K.retail bank during the operation of TQM regimesand explored how hierarchical power structuresimpinged on TQM and restricted its operation.

At the intraorganization level political factorsinclude individual traits, such as personal inter-ests and agendas of organizational members(Brass, 2002), while at the supraorganizationlevel political fit is affected by industry-levelphenomena, such as political settlements, unionagreements, and government regulations (Zeitzet al., 1999), as well as societal dimensions, suchas the types and character of political systemsand labor market policies, political freedoms,and national policies vis-a-vis political, corpo-rate, and social groups (Rasler, 1996).

Adaptation and Political Fit

We expect two mechanisms—less empha-sized in both rational and social accounts—toinfluence adaptation in response to a lack ofpolitical fit of a diffusing practice: enforcementpressures and compromise. Enforcement pres-sures refer to policing and monitoring in order toenforce compliance. Assuming high enforce-ment and scrutiny pressures during initialstages, early adopters will be less able to adaptand reduce misfit. Thus, they will implementtruer or high-fidelity versions of the practice,and political misfit will persist.


By compromise we mean a response that ac-commodates the political demands of a hetero-geneous political environment, leading to im-plementation of less faithful and less extensiveforms of the practice. Compromise will emergeprimarily because of maturation and counter-mobilization (Poole & Zeigler, 1981). Maturationhere refers to a “natural” process in which nor-mative claims are respecified to adjust to esti-mates of the probability of success. This processis frequently observed in social movements(Gamson, 1975), where “yesterday’s extremistsbecome today’s moderates” (Poole & Zeigler,1981). The second reason— countermobiliza-tion—suggests that normative claims will callforth competing claims and that the back-and-forth of ideological contest will lead to a grad-ual shift in the original position. For example, inhis study of the diffusion of public policies, suchas child abuse reporting laws and public cam-paign funding laws among U.S. states, Hays(1996) found greater adaptation among lateradopters who adopted different versions of sim-ilar laws and created substantially differentpolicies through adaptation. In a similar vein,Zbaracki’s (1998) study of the diffusion of TQMsuggests that implementation of this practiceresulted in considerable variation as managersappropriated the rhetoric of quality manage-ment, with TQM becoming increasingly ambig-uous, diffuse, and open to appropriation by var-ious interest groups.

The adaptation pattern suggested by enforce-ment pressures and by maturity and compro-mise as responses to political misfit is onewhere early adopters remain under closer scru-tiny and adopt the new practice with little if anyadaptation. However, later in the diffusion pro-cess, as scrutiny wanes and the practice ma-tures in response to countermobilization andcontestation and as enforcement mechanismsget blunted over time, new versions emerge thatbetter accommodate constituents whose inter-ests are not aligned with the new practice. Inthis situation of poor political fit, more defianceis possible, and later adopters should increas-ingly be able to engage in adaptation in order toreduce misfit, with more and differing versionsof the practice emerging. This suggests the fol-lowing patterns of adaptation.

Proposition 5: When adopters experi-ence low political fit between the

characteristics of the practice andthe organization, early adopters willimplement higher-fidelity versionswhereas later adopters will imple-ment lower-fidelity versions of thepractice.

To further reduce political misfit and accom-modate divergent political interests, later adopt-ers may also engage in decoupling by imple-menting less extensive versions of the practice.In this regard, later adopters are under lessscrutiny and can tailor the practice to make itless problematic by not only adapting a lower-fidelity version but also implementing less ex-tensive versions of the practice. For example,Westphal and Zajac (1994, 2001) found that sym-bolic adoption of long-term incentive plans andstock repurchase programs was frequently de-coupled from implementation, while Fiss andZajac (2006) showed how German firms de-coupled the announcement of politically contro-versial strategic change from actual implemen-tation. We expect these forms of less extensiveimplementation to be particularly prevalentamong later adopters for two reasons. First, witha growing number of adopters, scrutiny of im-plementation becomes less feasible, allowinglater adopters to adapt the practice by reducingits misfit with the organization and its constitu-ents. Second, with growing maturation andcountermobilization, enforcement mechanismsare likely to become less stringent, again pro-viding later adopters greater opportunities forimplementing less extensive versions of thepractice.

Proposition 6: When adopters experi-ence low political fit between thecharacteristics of the practice and theorganization, early adopters will im-plement more extensive versionswhereas later adopters will imple-ment less extensive versions of thepractice.

The arguments above suggest that a lack ofpolitical fit will be associated with a full andtrue implementation (high fidelity and high ex-tensiveness) among early adopters and a pat-tern of distant adaptation (low fidelity and lowextensiveness) among later adopters, as shownin Figure 2c.


In short, lack of technical, cultural, and polit-ical misfit is the main driver of adaptation,while limited knowledge, conformity pressures,and enforcement pressures and compromiseconstrain adaptation activity at different pointsin the diffusion process. These mechanisms de-termine whether and where in the diffusion pro-cess we would more likely see the persistence oftechnical, cultural, and political misfit and ad-aptation activity.

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS OF ADAPTATION

We have argued here that diffusing practicesare socially meaningful, multifaceted bundlesof knowledge rather than neutral innovationswith fixed parameters and universal applicabil-ity. In doing so we have aimed to shift the focusof recent work from a primary concern with de-mand-side characteristics toward the fit be-tween demand-side and supply-side character-istics of diffusion processes. We now furtherdevelop these arguments by specifically consid-ering supply-side practice characteristics, andwe develop several propositions concerninghow these features may affect adaptation pro-cesses in response to fit.

The argument that practice characteristics af-fect diffusion is, of course, not new. Followingthe initial work of Rogers (1962), a number ofauthors have argued that the adoption and re-jection of a practice will be influenced by prac-tice attributes (see Wolfe, 1994, for a reviewof practice attributes). Rogers himself (1995)pointed to five characteristics: relative advan-tage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, andobservability. Other researchers have addedambiguity (Benders & Van Veen, 2001), magni-tude or disruptiveness (Zaltman, Duncan, & Hol-bek, 1973), risk (Meyer & Goes, 1988), and status(Mohr, 1969). The result has been a considerablelist of sometimes overlapping characteristics,and most empirical research has tended toavoid such issues of the nature of practices(Wolfe, 1994), preferring to shift the focus toadopter characteristics—a focus that has ham-pered empirical comparisons of the adoption ofpractices with inherently different attributes(Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981; cf. Czarniawska &Joerges, 1996).

Studies focusing on adaptation processeshave pointed out that practice characteristicsare not independent of the interpretive social

processes of enactment by adopters—fit, in thisregard, can be influenced by the discursive ac-tivities of distributors and third-party evalua-tors, such as the media (Mazza & Alvarez, 2000),management consultants (Jackson, 2001), aca-demics (Sturdy & Gabriel, 2000), nongovernmen-tal organizations (Bierstecker, 1995), or profes-sional associations (Robertson et al., 1996). Forinstance, despite evidence suggesting that TQMis less valuable for smaller manufacturing orga-nizations, consultants driven by competitive ur-gency promoted this new management practiceunselectively across firms, arguing that TQM“works for all types of management: industrial,service, education, and government” (Stuelpna-gel, 1988: 4). As a result, many small- and medi-um-size enterprises readily adopted TQM with-out necessarily carefully assessing its value.

However, while practice characteristics andfit are to some extent perceived, we suggest thatthere are limits on this ability to construct them.Specifically, we argue that there are certain keycharacteristics or affordances (Gibson, 1979;Hutchby, 2001) that make it more or less likely apractice will be adapted. Within the sociology oftechnology, these affordances—and the possi-bilities they offer for action—suggest a con-straining as well as enabling materiality ofpractices; for instance, the “walk-on-ability” of asurface exists whether or not someone walks onit, yet this characteristic is mediated by percep-tion (Gibson, 1982).11 While affordance-typepractice characteristics are subject to redefini-tion and reinterpretation and may thus interactwith the characteristics of adopters, they never-theless are to a considerable extent indepen-dent of these adopter characteristics.

There is no strong theory as to which affor-dances matter for practice adaptation. However,based on prior work regarding practice charac-teristics and adoption (Gatignon & Robertson,1985; Tornatzky & Klein, 1982), we suggest threekey affordances for practices that are relevantfor adaptation. These are the practices’ interpre-tive viability, divisibility, and complexity.

11 The notion of affordances thus suggests a “third way”between the epistemological stances of realism on the onehand and constructivism on the other, and the materiality ofpractices relates to their effects, rather than merely to phys-ical features (e.g., Hutchby, 2001).


Interpretive Viability

The notion of interpretive viability emergesfrom prior work on the nature of practice adap-tation that shifts attention to interpretiveschemes, suggesting that certain practices havea greater likelihood of adaptation because theylend themselves to multiple interpretations andcan be adapted to multiple agendas (Benders &van Veen, 2001). Interpretive viability is thus re-lated to ambiguity (Giroux, 2006) but is prefera-ble since it directs attention toward the con-straining and enabling features of a practice asrelated to the meaning associated with it. AsBenders and van Veen (2001) suggest, interpre-tive viability will be connected with a growingdifferentiation of interpretations. For instance, apractice such as the use of self-managing teamsaffords greater interpretive viability since it op-erates at a fairly abstract level, providinggreater opportunities for divergent interpreta-tion and sensemaking (Griffith, 1999).

In contrast, more ”restrictive” practices, suchas those protected by patents or legalities, areless amenable to varying interpretations andare less likely to be adapted regarding theirmeaning. For example, the practice of franchis-ing carries legal stipulations allowing less free-dom for adaptation to local organizational con-texts. While interpretive viability will thus affectthe fidelity of adaptation, it is less likely to af-fect the extensiveness of practice adaptation;interpretation relates primarily to the meaningof the practice rather than to the extent of itsuse.12 Accordingly, interpretive viability will dif-ferentially enable and constrain adaptation, assuggested in the following proposition.

Proposition 7: Greater interpretive vi-ability of a practice will lead to lower-fidelity adaptation but will not affectpractice extensiveness.

Divisibility

The second affordance we discuss here is di-visibility—the degree to which the practice can

be implemented independent of scale. Divisibil-ity implies that practices can be adopted on asmall scale (Fliegel, Kivlin, & Sekhon, 1968), andit is closely related to the notion of trialability,which is “the degree to which an innovationmay be experimented with on a limited basis”(Rogers, 1995: 243). As Tornatzky and Klein (1982)point out, practices with a high degree of divis-ibility also have a high degree of trialability,although the reverse is not always true; prac-tices that can be easily tried out may exhibittrialability because of easy reversibility ratherthan because of scale issues.

Conceptually, the notion of divisibility im-plies a holographic understanding of the prac-tice, where each part contains the essentialcharacteristics of the practice, allowing for par-tial adaptation. The use of hybrid corn is fre-quently given as an example of a highly divisi-ble practice (cf. Tornatzky & Klein, 1982) since itgives the adopter the option of small-scale trialbefore full-scale use and thus reduces the cost ofadaptation in terms of practice extent. At thesame time, divisibility of a practice does notallow inferences regarding the fidelity of adap-tation in the same way that interpretive flexibil-ity affects the “malleability” of a practice. Thissuggests that the affordance of divisibility willaffect adaptation extensiveness and that the re-duced risk associated with partial adoption will,on average, lead to less extensive implementa-tion while not affecting adaptation fidelity.

Proposition 8: Greater divisibility of apractice will lead to less extensive ad-aptation but will not affect practicefidelity.

Complexity

In a number of prior works, scholars havenoted the effect of practice complexity on thelikelihood of adoption (e.g., Pelz, 1985; Rogers,1995). By practice complexity we mean the de-gree to which an organizational practice is per-ceived as difficult to understand and implementor is causally ambiguous owing to the numberand types of social interfaces and higher humaninvolvement (Lillrank, 1995; Rogers & Shoe-maker, 1971). Complexity is among the moststudied properties of diffusing practices, andfindings consistently point to a negative rela-tionship between complexity and the speed ofadoption (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982).

12 However, it is possible, of course, that interpretive via-bility will eventually affect the extent of implementation. Forinstance, greater interpretive viability may render a practicedifficult to observe, thus allowing organizations to claimextensive implementation when really the practice islargely decoupled.


The key notion underlying complexity is that acomplex practice consists of more componentsand more uncertainty regarding the links be-tween these components, as well as more uncer-tainty about the causal links between inputsand outputs (Pelz, 1985). In contrast, low-complexity practices contain only a few parts,and the causal relationships between them areusually fairly well understood by the potentialadopters.

Complexity of a practice constrains adapta-tion through the uncertainty resulting from alack of understanding regarding the practice’scausal ambiguity. Given this uncertainty,adopters will be likely to refrain from adaptingthe practice, instead implementing standardversions.13 At the same time, higher complexityof a practice is likely to constrain the extensive-ness of practice adaptation. In this sense highcomplexity of a practice will constrain whereaslow complexity will enable adaptation pro-cesses, suggesting the following proposition.

Proposition 9: Greater complexity of apractice will lead to higher-fidelityand less extensive adaptation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our intended contribution has been to providean original analytical framework for under-standing adaptation patterns that could blendthe insights of parsimonious population-leveldiffusion models with the insights of case-basedstudies of how practices diffuse. Using two fun-damental dimensions (fidelity and extensive-ness) to map the adaptation continuum, we de-veloped arguments as to how three forms of fitand misfit result in different adaptation patternsof diffusing practices across the fitness land-scape, and we furthermore suggested that prac-tice affordances can both enable and constrainthese adaptation patterns. Our approach standsin contrast to earlier, more mechanical frame-

works developed around the concept of diffusionas a physical process, with practices as ready-made and unchangeable physical entities orig-inating from one source and then becomingmore diffused over time.

Our focus on adaptation processes highlightsthe strengths and weaknesses of traditional ra-tional and social accounts of diffusion amongorganizations. For example, if adaptation is thenorm rather than the exception, then the techni-cal, cultural, and political implications of a dif-fusing practice will often be subject to negotia-tion and change during the diffusion process. Asa result, organizations will frequently find it dif-ficult to conduct rational calculations on thecost-benefit trade-offs of adoption when themeaning of the diffusing practice is still in flux.Furthermore, these organizations are them-selves significant “sensegivers” in the complexprocess that shapes the meaning of a diffusingpractice (Fiss & Zajac, 2006). This likewise pointsto the emergent, processual, and recursive char-acter of implementation and diffusion, whereoutcomes are often undetermined, since the in-teractions between the practice and its new con-text are often poorly understood (Sewell, 1992).In addition, the ideas of ongoing negotiationand change suggest that the legitimacy of adiffusing practice is also in flux in ways that gobeyond social accounts emphasizing simple mi-metic processes (Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). Indeed,adaptation itself as a process may vary signifi-cantly between the creation of home-grown so-lutions, where limited versions of a practice areavailable, and the selection of solutions fromthe wider range of practice variants available insociety.

We have argued here that technical, cultural,and political categories of factors present ana-lytically separate aspects and mechanisms ofthe implementation and diffusion process andthat each may be present to varying degrees.However, this is not to say that the three forms offit are completely independent in their emer-gence and development. For example, the prev-alence of a particular technology among adopt-ers may often be the result of specific culturalpreferences (Graham, 1954). Similarly, culturalcontexts are shaped by the outcomes of politicalstruggles, and vice versa (Ham & Hill, 1984).However, we believe it is useful to treat the threecategories at various levels of analysis indepen-dently for analytical clarity and predictive pre-

13 An alternative argument suggests that complex prac-tices with high levels of causal ambiguity as to what ele-ments are critical may be imperfectly understood and inter-preted (Rivkin, 2000), suggesting that imitation willfrequently result in imperfect implementation and variation.While this is entirely plausible for complex systems, it refersto a mechanism of unintended variation resulting from in-formation loss, not purposeful and deliberate adaptation,which is the focus of our study.


cision, even while acknowledging that the out-come of the diffusion process may, in turn,change the technical, cultural, and politicallandscape.

Empirical and Methodological Considerations

A central aspect of our perspective is that theadoption and diffusion of new corporate prac-tices often requires significant amounts of adap-tive as well as interpretive effort, as organiza-tions seek to integrate these practices intoexisting organizational technologies, culturalcontexts, and political arenas. Previous re-search has largely followed the traditional dif-fusion model that employs a binary dependentvariable for adoption. We recognize that this ispartly due to the methodological difficulties ofshifting dependent variables, since most statis-tical models make considerable homogenizingassumptions in order to process their data, treat-ing diffusing practices as uniform entities thatdo not vary by context and remain stable overtime. In contrast, we place adaptation at theheart of diffusion studies and argue that moreattention needs to be focused on the ways inwhich adopters actively shape the diffusingpractice to ensure fit with the organizationalcontext. This shift in emphasis merits some com-ments regarding questions of operationalizationand measurement.

First, our approach encourages studies com-bining qualitative and quantitative methodsthat could more clearly identify the processes bywhich new practices are made to fit the adopt-er’s particular situation. However, while quali-tative studies seem a natural choice for study-ing the richness of meaning construction,quantitative studies are usually more adept attracing interorganizational adaptation patterns,particularly over time. In this regard the ques-tion then becomes how to measure fidelity, ex-tensiveness, or fit characteristics across a largerset of organizations and practices.

Fortunately, there is considerable precedentregarding the operationalization of the con-structs we have discussed here. For instance,several studies have aimed to measure how farimplementation deviates from prior practiceforms (e.g., Larsen & Argawalla-Rogers, 1977;Rice & Rogers, 1980). Measures of fidelity heremight include expert ratings of core and periph-ery practice elements (e.g., Kessler, Nixon, &

Nelson, 2008) or deviation score approaches re-garding key practice elements (Doty & Glick,1994). Prior works also suggest useful measuresof practice extensiveness, both survey basedand archival ones, such as perceived extent ofimplementation, or the proportion of depart-ments in an organization using a practice (e.g.,Kennedy & Fiss, 2009; Lewis & Seibold, 1993;Scheirer, 1983; Wu et al., 2003).

Similarly, scholars can use existing scales orcan develop new ones for gauging technical,cultural, and political fit or congruence. Forstudying technical fit one might create a mea-sure of the similarity of the technological baseof the practice and the adopting organizationbased on, for example, patent stock data (Chung& Yeaple, 2008) or expert assessment of similar-ity. Furthermore, on the demand side the ab-sorptive capacity of an organization is an estab-lished measure (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998). Forexamining cultural fit, international businessscholars have provided useful instruments thatmeasure cultural fit at various levels of analysis(Newman & Nollen, 1998; Weber & Menipaz,2003). Finally, the literature on power and orga-nizational politics (Bacharach & Lawler, 1998;Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008; Eisenhardt &Zbaracki, 1992) that examines how conflictinginterests, political alignments, divergent agen-das, and values at play within organizationsinfluence receptivity to new practices can pro-vide useful clues for measuring political fit, in-cluding the use of perceptual measures (“doesthis practice conflict with your interests?”).14 Af-fordances such as complexity and interpretiveviability might be measured by using expertratings, as prior studies have shown (Tornatzky& Klein, 1982). While some of these measuresmight involve new and creative ways to opera-tionalize the relevant constructs, it would seemthat there are no insurmountable difficultiesand there are considerable precedents to guidethis task.

Future Research Directions

Our research suggests several fruitful ave-nues for future research. For example, it seems

14 See Kacmar and Baron (1999) for a review of differentscales for gauging various aspects of organizational poli-tics.


plausible that the information availability pro-cesses associated with technical adaptationmay often be blocked in the presence of powerand conflicting interests. Perhaps similar effectsmay be observed in the presence of culturallylegitimated models. On the other hand, greateravailability of information about a practice mayalso result in shifting positions of power, as hasbeen observed in how new technologies restruc-ture organizations (e.g., Barley, 1986). Being ableto account for these interrelated processeswould allow us to study and explain much morecomplex patterns of adaptation in which modelsfor adoption get established, contested, modi-fied, and replaced. Again, these considerationspoint to adoption and implementation as a dy-namic process where much of the relevant ac-tivity of the diffusion process begins rather thanends. Stated differently, we hope that our theo-retical framework will encourage others study-ing diffusion across firms to also address thequestion of implementation or diffusion withinfirms and to take into account both the indepen-dent and interdependent effects of consideringthese two processes jointly. Indeed, adopters arenot necessarily internally homogeneous, andduring intraorganizational diffusion, there is al-ways the possibility of heterogeneity in levels ofpractice fit across networks, projects, geogra-phies, and power structures.

Further research might also explore diffusionprocesses where late adopters (responding toinnovation at later stages of the diffusion pro-cess) discard certain innovations and adapta-tions as they grapple with their own solutions tospecific problems. Such research would not onlyconnect to themes of abandonment in diffusionresearch (Greve, 1995; Strang & Macy, 2001) butalso would extend such themes by attending toquestions of interrupted, incomplete, or evenfailed diffusion processes (Jonsson, 2009), whichhave so far received very little attention. Ourframework suggests that factors associated withtechnical, cultural, and political (mis)fit may beimportant predictors of such outcomes. Such re-search could also illuminate when learning pro-cesses may be blocked or when the legitimacyof culturally accepted models may wane, affect-ing both the intra and interorganizational diffu-sion of management practices.

Our study also contributes to the literature onstrategic and organizational fit, and we see ourapproach as quite consistent with recent ad-

vances in this area (Zajac et al., 2000), whichhave emphasized the need for the concept of fitto be dynamic, multivariate, and normative. Ouradditional emphasis on adaptation is importantbut also often unaddressed in the literature onfit, which (like the diffusion literature) has fo-cused more on the antecedents and conse-quences of the central concept (fit or diffusion,respectively), often without questioning the an-tecedents or consequences of changes in thepractice that is diffusing or fitting to organiza-tions.

Our analysis of the role of adaptation in thediffusion process also raises intriguing ques-tions regarding the identity of a diffusing prac-tice. If corporate practices are frequentlyadapted, at what point do they become a differ-ent entity and should no longer be thought of asthe same practice? Do original adopters of newpractices sometimes seek to discourage adapta-tion in order to protect the purity of the diffusingpractice, or disown the practice when adapta-tion is extensive? Do certain organizations con-ceal the adoption and adaptation of practices?Very little research has focused on how diffus-ing items change their identity and the responsesuch changes generate on the part of key actorsinvolved in the diffusion process.

Finally, while the current paper has high-lighted some of the supply-side factors in thediffusion process, much remains to be done toexplore the role of change agents, fashion set-ters, opinion leaders, and new ideologies ingenerating and positioning practices for diffu-sion, both within and across organizations (Bir-kinshaw, Hamel, & Mol, 2008; Zajac & Westphal,2004). Research through comparative case stud-ies not just across practices but also across or-ganizations could provide important insightsinto processes by which adoption, adaptation,and diffusion of different types of practices oc-cur. Such research would show how adaptationis affected by outsiders who have an interest inthe diffusion practice and who aim to affecttechnical, cultural, and political fit. We thereforehope our theorizing will spawn further concep-tual and empirical analyses to broaden the the-oretical base and predictive power of studies onthe diffusion of organizational practices and onstrategic and organizational fit. We believe thatthe framework we have developed for consider-ing adaptation, fit, and affordances in the diffu-sion process will generate a more nuanced the-


oretical and empirical understanding of theadoption, adaptation, and abandonment of dif-fusing management practices, along with agreater ability to assess the likely consequencesof such behaviors.

REFERENCES

Abrahamson, E. 1991. Managerial fads and fashions: Thediffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Man-agement Review, 16: 586–612.

Abrahamson, E. 1996. Management fashion. Academy ofManagement Review, 21: 254–285.

Abrahamson, E. 2006. Book review of Global ideas: Howideas, objects, and practices travel in the global econ-omy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51: 512–514.

Adler, P., & Shenhar, A. 1990. Adapting your technologicalbase: The organizational challenge. Sloan ManagementReview, 32: 25–37.

Attewell, P. 1992. Technology diffusion and organizationallearning: The case of business computing. OrganizationScience, 3: 1–19.

Bacharach, S., & Lawler, E. 1998. Political alignments inorganizations: Contextualization, mobilization, and co-ordination. In R. M. Kramer & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Powerand influence in organizations: 67–88. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Banerjee, A. 1992. A simple model of herd behavior. Quar-terly Journal of Economics, 103: 797–818.

Barley, S. 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring:Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the so-cial order of radiology departments. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 31: 78–108.

Behrman, J., & Wallender, H. 1976. Transfer of manufacturingtechnology within multinational enterprises. Cam-bridge, MA: Ballinger.

Benders, J., & van Veen, K. 2001. What’s in a fashion? Inter-pretative viability and management fashions. Organi-zation, 8: 33–53.

Bhagat, R., Kedia, B., Harveston, P., & Triandis, H. 2002. Cul-tural variations in the cross-border transfer of organiza-tional knowledge—An integrative framework. Academyof Management Review, 27: 204–221.

Bierstecker, T. 1995. The triumph of liberal economic ideas inthe developing world. In B. Stallings (Ed.), Globalchange—Regional response: 177–179. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. 1992. A theory offads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informa-tional cascades. Journal of Political Economics, 100: 992–1026.

Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. 1998. Learningfrom the behavior of others: Conformity, fads, and infor-mational cascades. Journal of Economic Perspectives,12: 151–170.

Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. 2008. Management inno-vation. Academy of Management Review, 33: 825–845.

Boas, F. 1925. Evolution or diffusion? American Anthropolo-gist, 26: 340–344.

Botti, H. 1997. Going local: Hybridization process as situatedlearning. In J. L. Alvarez (Ed.), The diffusion and con-sumption of business knowledge: 48–72. London: Mac-millan.

Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Managing power in themultinational corporation: How low-power actors gaininfluence. Journal of Management, 34: 477–508.

Boxenbaum, E., & Battilana, J. 2005. Importation as innova-tion: Transposing managerial practices across fields.Strategic Organization, 3: 355–383.

Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. 2008. Isomorphism, diffusionand decoupling. In R. Greenwood, R. Suddaby, C. Oliver,& K. Sahlin-Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of organizationalinstitutionalism: 78–98. New York: Sage.

Boyer, R., Charron, E., & Jurgens, U. (Eds.). 1998. Betweenimitation and innovation. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Brass, D. J. 2002. Intraorganizational power and dependence.In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to orga-nizations: 138–157. Oxford: Blackwell.

Briscoe, F., & Safford, S. 2008. The Nixon in China effect:Activism, imitation and the institutionalization of con-tentious practices. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53:460–491.

Brown, L. 1981. Innovation diffusion. London: Methuen.

Callon, M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation:Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St.Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: Anew sociology of knowledge? 196–223. London: Rout-ledge and Kegan Paul.

Carlile, P. 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming:An integrative framework for managing knowledgeacross boundaries. Organization Science, 15: 555–568.

Chandler, A. 1962. Strategy and structure. Boston: MIT Press.

Chung, W., & Yeaple, S. 2008. International knowledge sourc-ing: Evidence from U.S. firms expanding abroad. Strate-gic Management Journal, 29: 1207–1224.

Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: Anew perspective on learning and innovation. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 35: 128–152.

Cool, K. O., Dierickx, I., & Szulanski, G. 1997. Diffusion ofinnovations within organizations: Electronic switchingin the Bell system, 1971–1982. Organization Science, 8:543–559.

Creed, W., Scully, M., & Austin, J. 2002. Clothes make theperson? The tailoring of legitimating accounts and thesocial construction of identity. Organization Science, 13:475–496.

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of thefirm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. 1996. Travels of ideas. In


B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.), Translating organiza-tional change: 13–48. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Czarniawska, B., & Sevon, G. (Eds.). 2005. Global ideas: Howideas, objects, and practices travel in the global econ-omy. Copenhagen: Liber and Copenhagen BusinessSchool Press.

Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators.Academy of Management Journal, 34: 555–590.

Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. 1984. Organizational innovationand performance the problem of “organizational lag.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 392–409.

David, R., & Strang, D. 2006. When fashion is fleeting: Tran-sitory collective beliefs and the dynamics of TQM con-sulting. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 215–233.

Davis, G., & Greve, H. 1997. Corporate elite networks andgovernance changes in the 1980s. American Journal ofSociology, 103: 1–37.

Davis, G. F., & Marquis, C. 2005. Prospects for organizationtheory in the twenty-first century: Institutional fieldsand mechanisms. Organization Science, 16: 332–343.

Davis, G. F., & Thompson, T. A. 1994. A social movementperspective on corporate control. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 39: 141–173.

Dean, J., & Bowen, D. 1994. Management theory and totalquality: Improving research and practice through theorydevelopment. Academy of Management Review, 19: 392–418.

DiMaggio, P. 1992. Cultural boundaries and structuralchange: The extension of the high culture model totheater, opera, and dance, 1900–1940. In M. Lamont &M. Fournier (Eds.), Symbolic boundaries and the makingof inequality: 21–57. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited:Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality inorganizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48:147–160.

Djelic, M. 1998. Exporting the American model. Oxford: Ox-ford University Press.

Doty, D., & Glick, W. 1994. Typologies as a unique form oftheory building: Toward improved understanding andmodeling. Academy of Management Review, 19: 230–251.

Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. 1985. Alternative forms of fit andcontingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly,30: 514–539.

Drory, A., & Romm, T. 1990. The definition of organizationalpolitics: A review. Human Relations, 43: 1133–1154.

Eisenhardt, K., & Zbaracki, M. 1992. Strategic decision mak-ing. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 17–37.

Elsbach, K., & Sutton, R. 1992. Acquiring organizational le-gitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage ofinstitutional and impression management theories.Academy of Management Journal, 35: 699–738.

Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. 1985. Standardization, compatibility,and innovation. RAND Journal of Economics, 16: 70–83.

Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. 2004. The diffusion of ideas overcontested terrain: The (non) adoption of a shareholdervalue orientation among German firms. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 49: 501–534.

Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. 2006. The symbolic management ofstrategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decou-pling. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 1173–1193.

Fliegel, F., Kivlin, J., & Sekhon, G. 1968. A cross-nationalcomparison of farmers’ perceptions of innovations asrelated to adoption behavior. Rural Sociology, 33: 437–449.

Fligstein, N. 1985. The spread of the multidivisional formamong large organizations, 1919–1979. American Socio-logical Review, 50: 377–391.

Fligstein, N. 1996. Markets as politics: A political-culturalapproach to market institutions. American SociologicalReview, 61: 656–673.

Frenkel, M. 2005. The politics of translation: How state levelpolitical relations affect the cross-national travel ofideas. Organization, 12: 275–301.

Gamson, W. 1975. The strategy of social protest. Homewood,IL: Dorsey Press.

Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. 1985. A propositional inventoryfor new diffusion research. Journal of Consumer Re-search, 11: 849–867.

Gibson, J. 1979. The ecological approach to perception. Lon-don: Houghton Mifflin.

Gibson, J. 1982. Reasons for realism: Selected essays. Hills-dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Giroux, H. 2006. It was such a handy term: Managementfashions and pragmatic ambiguity. Journal of Manage-ment Studies, 43: 1227–1260.

Glick, H. R., & Hays, S. P. 1991. Innovation and adaptation instate policymaking: Theory and evolution of living willlaws. Journal of Politics, 53: 835–850.

Graham, S. 1954. Cultural compatibility in the adoption oftelevision. Social Forces, 33: 166–170.

Green, S. E. 2004. A rhetorical theory of diffusion. Academy ofManagement Review, 29: 653–669.

Green, S. E., Li, Y., & Nohria, N. 2009. Suspended in self-spunwebs of significance: A rhetorical model of institution-alization and institutionally embedded agency. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 52: 11–36.

Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. 1996. Understanding radicalorganizational change: Bringing together the old andthe new institutionalism. Academy of Management Re-view, 21: 1022–1054.

Greve, H. 1998. Managerial cognition and the mimetic adop-tion of market positions: What you see is what you do.Strategic Management Journal, 19: 967–988.

Greve, H., & Taylor, A. 2000. Innovations as catalysts fororganizational change: Shifts in organizational cogni-tion and search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45:54–80.


Greve, H. R. 1995. Jumping ship: The diffusion of strategicabandonment. Adminisrative Science Qurterly, 40: 444–473.

Griffith, T. 1999. Technology features as triggers for sense-making. Academy of Management Review, 24: 472–488.

Griswold, W. 1987. A methodological framework for the so-ciology of culture. In C. C. Clogg (Ed.), Sociologicalmethodology: 1–36. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guillen, M. 1994. Models of management. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press.

Ham, C., & Hill, M. 1984. The policy process in the moderncapitalist state. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Hays, S. 1996. Influences on adaptation during the diffusionof innovations. Political Research Quarterly, 49: 631–650.

Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. 1990. Architectural innova-tion: The reconfiguration of exiting product technologiesand the failure of established firms. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 35: 9–30.

Hinings, C. R., & Tolbert, P. S. 2008. Organizational institu-tionalism and sociology: A reflection. In R. Greenwood,C. Oliver, K. Sahlin-Andersson, & R. Suddaby (Eds.),Handbook of organizational institutionalism: 473–490.New York: Sage.

Hirsch, P. 1986. From ambushes to golden parachutes: Cor-porate takeovers as an instance of cultural framing andinstitutional integration. American Journal of Sociology,91: 800–837.

Hunter, L. 2000. The adoption of innovative work practices inservice establishments. International Journal of HumanResource Management, 11: 477–496.

Hutchby, I. 2001. Technologies, texts and affordances. Soci-ology, 35: 441–456.

Jackson, B. 2001. Management gurus and management fash-ions. London: Routledge.

Johnson, B., & Hagstrom, J. 2005. The translation perspectiveas an alternative to the policy diffusion paradigm: Thecase of the Swedish methadone maintenance treatment.Journal of Social Policy, 34: 365–388.

Jonsson, S. 2002. Making and breaking norms: Competitivepatterns in the Swedish mutual fund industry. Doctoraldissertation, Institute for International Business, Stock-holm School of Economics, Stockholm.

Jonsson, S. 2009. Refraining from imitation: Professional re-sistance and limited diffusion in a financial market.Organization Science, 20: 172–186.

Kacmar, M., & Baron, R. 1999. Organizational politics: Thestate of the field, links to related processes, and anagenda for future research. Research in Personnel andHuman Resources Management, 17: 1–39.

Katz, E. 1999. Theorizing diffusion: Tarde and Sorokin revis-ited. Annals of the American Academy of Political andSocial Science, 566: 144–155.

Katz, E., Hamilton, H., & Levin, M. 1963. Traditions of researchon the diffusion of innovation. American SociologicalReview, 28: 237–252.

Katz, M., & Shapiro, C. 1987. R&D rivalry with licensing orimitation. American Economic Review, 77: 402–420.

Kedia, B. L., & Bhagat, R. S. 1988. Cultural constraints ontransfer of technology across nations: Implications forresearch in international and comparative manage-ment. Academy of Management Review, 13: 559–571.

Kennedy, M. T., & Fiss, P. C. 2009. Institutionalization, fram-ing, and the logic of TQM adoption and implementationdecisions among U.S. hospitals. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 52: 897–918.

Kessler, S., Nixon, A., & Nelson, C. 2008. Don’t throw out thebaby with the bath water: A novel way of evaluatingoutcomes in the Healthy Families America program.American Journal of Evaluation, 29: 288–300.

Khan, F., Munir, K., & Willmott, H. 2007. A dark side of insti-tutional entrepreneurship: Soccer balls, child labor andpostcolonial impoverishment. Organization Studies, 287:1055–1077.

Kimberly, J., & Evanisko, M. 1981. Organizational innovation:The influence of individual, organizational, and contex-tual factors on hospital adoption of technological andadministrative innovations. Academy of ManagementJournal, 24: 689–713.

Klassen, R. 2000. Just-in-time manufacturing and pollutionprevention generate mutual benefits in the furnitureindustry. Interfaces, 30(3): 95–106.

Knights, D., & McCabe, D. 1999. Are there no limits to author-ity? TQM and organizational power. Organization Stud-ies, 20: 197–224.

Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacityand interorganizational learning. Strategic Manage-ment Journal, 19: 461–477.

Larsen, J., & Argawalla-Rogers, R. 1977. Re-invention of in-novative ideas: Modified? Adopted? None of the above?Evaluation, 4: 136–140.

Latour, B. 1986. The powers of association. In J. Law (Ed.),Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge?264–280. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Leonard-Barton, D. 1988. Implementation as mutual adap-tion of technology and organization. Research Policy, 17:251–267.

Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. 1993. Innovation modificationduring intraorganizational adoption. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 18: 322–354.

Lieberman, M., & Asaba, S. 2006. Why do firms imitate eachother? Academy of Management Review, 31: 366–368.

Lillrank, P. 1995. The transfer of management innovationfrom Japan. Organization Studies, 16: 971–989.

Lopes, P. 1999. Diffusion and syncretism: The modern jazztradition. Annals of the American Academy of Politicaland Social Science, 566: 25–36.

Lounsbury, M. 2002. Institutional transformation and statusmobility: The professionalization of the field of finance.Academy of Management Journal, 45: 255–266.

Lowie, R. H. 1914. Ceremonialism in North America. Ameri-can Antropologist, 16: 602–631.


Lozeau, D., Langley, A., & Denis, J. 2002. The corruption ofmanagerial techniques by organizations. Human Rela-tions, 55: 537–564.

Mamman, A. 2002. Adoption and modification of manage-ment ideas in organisations: Towards an analyticframework. Strategic Change, 11: 379–389.

Mamman, A. 2007. From management ideas to practice: Whyand how new versions of management practicesemerge. Working Paper No. 20, Institute for DevelopmentPolicy and Management, University of Manchester,Manchester, UK.

Mansfield, E. 1961. Technical change and the rate of imita-tion. Econometrica, 29: 741–766.

March, J. G. 1981. Footnotes on organizational change. Ad-ministrative Science Quarterly, 26: 563–577.

Marquette, J. 1981. A logistic diffusion model of politicalmobilization. Political Behavior, 3: 7–30.

Marquis, C. 2003. The pressure of the past: Network imprint-ing in intercorporate communities. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 48: 655–689.

Mayes, B., & Allen, R. 1977. Toward a definition of organiza-tional politics. Academy of Management Review, 2: 672–678.

Mazza, C., & Alvarez, J. L. 2000. The popular press and thediffusion of management practices. Organization Stud-ies, 21: 567–588.

Meyer, A., & Goes, J. 1988. Organizational assimilation ofinnovations: Multilevel contextual analysis. Academy ofManagement Journal, 31: 897–923.

Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations:Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Jour-nal of Sociology, 83: 340–363.

Mohr, L. 1969. Determinant of innovation in organizations.American Political Science Review, 63: 111–126.

Mol, M., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Giant steps in management:Innovations that change the way you work. London:Prentice-Hall.

Monks, R., & Minow, N. 2001. Corporate governance (2nd ed.).Oxford: Blackwell.

Mooney, C., & Lee, M. 1995. Legislating morality in the Amer-ican states: The case of pre-Roe abortion regulationreform. American Journal of Political Science, 39: 599–627.

Mooney, C., & Lee, M. 1999. Morality policy adaptation: Statedeath penalties. Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science, 566: 80–92.

Morris, T., & Lancaster, Z. 2006. Translating managementideas. Organization Studies, 27: 207–233.

Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. 1980. A model for diagnosingorganizational behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 9(2):35–51.

Newman, K., & Nollen, S. 1998. Managing radical organiza-tional change: Company transformation in emergingmarket economies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Normann, R. 1971. Organizational innovativeness: Product

variation and reorientation. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 16: 203–215.

O’Mahoney, J. 2007. The diffusion of management innova-tions: The possibilities and limitations of memetics.Journal of Management Studies, 44: 1324–1348.

Oliver, C. 1992. The antecedents of deinstitutionalization.Organization Studies, 13: 563–588.

Palazzolo, E. T., Serb, D., She, Y., Su, C., & Contractor, N. S.2006. Coevolution of communication and knowledge net-works in transactive memory systems: Using computa-tional models for theoretical development. Communica-tion Theory, 16: 223–250.

Palmer, D., Jennings, P., & Zhou, X. 1993. Late adoption of themultidivisional form by large U.S. corporations: Institu-tional, political and economic accounts. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 38: 100–131.

Pelz, D. C. 1985. Innovation complexity and the sequence ofinnovating stages. Science Communication, 6: 261–291.

Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pit-man.

Poole, K., & Zeigler, L. 1981. The diffusion of feminist ideol-ogy. Political Behavior, 3: 229–256.

Prahalad, C., & Bettis, R. 1986. The dominant logic: A newlinkage between diversity and performance. StrategicManagement Journal, 7: 485–501.

Radnor, M., Feller, I., & Rogers, E. (Eds.). 1978. The diffusion ofinnovations: An assessment. Evanston, IL: Center for theInterdisciplinary Study of Science and Technology,Northwestern University.

Rao, H., Greve, H. R., & Davis, G. F. 2001. Fool’s gold: Socialproof in the initiation and abandonment of coverage byWall Street analysts. Administrative Science Quarterly,46: 502–526.

Rasler, K. 1996. Concessions, repressions, and political pro-test in the Iranian revolution. American SociologicalReview, 61: 132–152.

Rice, R. E., & Rogers, E. M. 1980. Re-invention and the inno-vation process. Knowledge, 1: 499–514.

Rivkin, J. W. 2000. Imitation of complex strategies. Manage-ment Science, 46: 824–844.

Robertson, M., Swan, J., & Newell, S. 1996. The role of net-works in the diffusion of technological innovation. Jour-nal of Management Studies, 33: 333–359.

Rogers, E. 1962. Diffusion of innovations. New York: FreePress.

Rogers, E., & Shoemaker, F. F. 1971. Communication of inno-vations: A cross cultural approach (2nd ed.). New York:Free Press.

Rogers, E. M. 1995. The diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). NewYork: Free Press.

Sahlin-Andersson, K. 1996. Imitating by editing success: Theconstruction of organizational fields. In B. Czarniawska& G. Sevon (Eds.), Translating organizational change:69–92. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Engwall, L. (Eds.). 2002. The expan-


sion of management knowledge: Carriers, flows andsources. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

Saka, A. 2004. The cross-national diffusion of work systems:The translation of Japanese operations in the UK. Orga-nization Studies, 25: 217–236.

Scheirer, M. 1983. Approaches to the study of implementa-tion. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 30:76–82.

Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Serres, M. 1982. Hermes: Literature, science and philosophy.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sewell, W. 1992. A theory of structure: Duality, agency, andtransformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98: 1–29.

Sine, W., Haveman, H., & Tolbert, P. 2005. Risky business?Entrepreneurship in the new independent-power sector.Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 200–232.

Soule, S. 1999. The diffusion of an unsuccessful innovation.Annals of the American Academy of Political and SocialScience, 566: 120–131.

Spier, L. 1921. The sun dance of the Plains Indians: Its devel-opment and diffusion. Anthropological Papers of theAmerican Museum of Natural History, 16: 451–527.

Stinchcombe, A. 1965. Social structure and organizations. InJ. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations: 142–193.Chicago: Rand McNally.

Strang, D., & Kim, Y. 2004. Diffusion and domestication ofmanagerial innovations: The spread of scientific man-agement, quality circles, and TQM between the UnitedStates and Japan. In S. Ackroyd, P. Thompson, P. Tolbert,& R. Batt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of work and orga-nization: 177–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Strang, D., & Macy, M. W. 2001. In search of excellence: Fads,success stories, and adaptive emulation. American Jour-nal of Sociology, 107: 147–182.

Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. 1993. Institutional conditions fordiffusion. Theory and Society, 22: 487–511.

Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. 1998. Diffusion in organizations andsocial movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills.Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 265–290.

Stuelpnagel, T. 1988. Total quality management in businessand academia. Business Forum, 14(1): 4–9.

Sturdy, A. 2004. The adoption of management ideas andpractices: Theoretical perspectives and possibilities.Management Learning, 35: 155–179.

Sturdy, A., & Gabriel, Y. 2000. Missionaries, mercenaries orused car salesmen? Teaching MBA in Malaysia. Journalof Management Studies, 37: 979–1002.

Swidler, A. 1986. Culture and action: Symbols and strategies.American Sociological Review, 51: 273–286.

Tatalovich, R., Smith, A., & Bobic, M. 1994. Moral conflict andthe policy process. Policy Currents, 4: 1–7.

Teece, D. 1980. The diffusion of an administrative innovation.Management Science, 26: 464–470.

Terlaak, A., & Gong, Y. 2008. Vicarious learning and inferen-

tial accuracy in adoption processes. Academy of Man-agement Review, 33: 846–868.

Tolbert, P., & Zucker, L. 1983. Institutional sources of changein the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion ofcivil service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 28: 22–39.

Tolbert, P., & Zucker, L. 1996. The institutionalization of in-stitutional theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord(Eds.), The handbook of organization studies: 175–190.London: Sage.

Tornatzky, L., & Klein, K. 1982. Innovation characteristics andinnovation implementation: A meta-analysis of find-ings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,29: 28–45.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1974. Judgment under uncer-tainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185: 1124–1130.

Van de Ven, A. 1986. Central problems in the management ofinnovation. Management Science, 32: 590–607.

Venkatraman, N. 1989. The concept of fit in strategy research:Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Acad-emy of Management Review, 14: 423–444.

Walker, J. 1969. The diffusion of innovation among the Amer-ican states. American Political Science Review, 63: 880–899.

Weber, Y., & Menipaz, E. 2003. Measuring cultural fit inmergers and acquisitions. International Journal of Busi-ness Performance Management, 5: 54–72.

Wejnert, B. 2002. Integrating models of diffusion of innova-tions: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Soci-ology, 28: 297–326.

Westney, D. 1987. Imitation and innovation: The transfer ofWestern organizational patterns to Meiji Japan. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R., & Shortell, S. M. 1997. Customiza-tion or conformity? An institutional and network per-spective on the content and consequences of TQM adop-tion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 366–394.

Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. 1994. Substance and symbolismin CEO’s long-term incentive plans. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 39: 367–390.

Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. 2001. Decoupling policy frompractice: The case of stock repurchase programs. Ad-ministrative Science Quarterly, 46: 202–228.

Whitten, P., & Collins, B. 1997. The diffusion of telemedicine.Science Communication, 19: 21–40.

Whyte, W. F. 1968. Imitation or innovation: Reflections on theinstitutional development of Peru. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 13: 370–385.

Williamson, O. 1979. Transaction cost economics: The gov-ernance of contractual relations. Journal of Law andEconomics, 22: 233–261.

Wolfe, R. 1994. Organizational innovation: Review, critiqueand suggested research directions. Journal of Manage-ment Studies, 31: 405–431.

Wu, F., Mahajan, V., & Balasubramanian, S. 2003. An analy-sis of e-business adoption and its impact on business


performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-ence, 31: 425–447.

Yuan, Y. C., Fulk, J., & Monge, P. 2007. Access to informationin connective and communal transactive memory sys-tems. Communication Research, 34: 131–155.

Yuan, Y. C., Fulk, J., Shumate, M., Monge, P., Bryant, J. A., &Matsaganis, M. 2005. Individual participation in organi-zational information commons: The impact of team levelsocial influence and technology-specific competence.Human Communication Research, 31(2): 212–240.

Zajac, E. J., Kraatz, M. S., & Bresser, R. K. 2000. Modeling thedynamics of strategic fit: A normative approach to stra-tegic change. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 429–453.

Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, D. D. 2004. The social construction ofmarket value: Institutionalization and learning perspec-

tives on stock market reactions. American SociologicalReview, 69: 433–458.

Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. 1973. Innovations andorganizations. New York: Wiley.

Zbaracki, M. 1998. The rhetoric and reality of total qualitymanagement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 602–636.

Zeitlin, J., & Herrigel, G. (Eds.). 2000. Americanization and itslimits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zeitz, G., Mittal, V., & McAulay, B. 1999. Distinguishing adop-tion and entrenchment of management practices: Aframework for analysis. Organization Studies, 20: 741–776.

Zilber, T. 2006. The work of the symbolic in institutionalprocesses: Translations of rational myths in Israeli hi-tech. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 279–301.

Shahzad M. Ansari ([email protected]) is university lecturer at Judge BusinessSchool, University of Cambridge, and visiting assistant professor at Rotterdam Schoolof Management, Erasmus University. He received his Ph.D. from the University ofCambridge. His research interests include institutional processes, technological andmanagement innovations, and the development of new markets. He is currentlyinvestigating collective action domains, value creation, and technological transitions.

Peer C. Fiss ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of strategy at the Uni-versity of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business. He received his Ph.D.jointly from the Departments of Management & Organization and Sociology at North-western University. His current research interests include practice diffusion andadaptation, symbolic management, and set-theoretic methods.

Edward J. Zajac ([email protected]) is the James F. Bere DistinguishedProfessor of Management and Organizations at the Kellogg School of Management,Northwestern University. He received his Ph.D. in organization and strategy from theWharton School, University of Pennsylvania. His research emphasizes the integrationof economic and behavioral perspectives on corporate governance, organizationaladaptation, and strategic alliances.


Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

MADE TO FIT: HOW PRACTICES VARY AS THEY DIFFUSE · 2020-06-11 · MADE TO FIT: HOW PRACTICES VARY AS THEY DIFFUSE SHAHZAD M. ANSARI University of Cambridge PEER C. FISS University