Trapped in conformity? Translating reputationmanagement into practice

Arild Wæraas a,*, Hogne L. Sataøen b,1

aUMB School of Economics and Business, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432 As, NorwaybUNI Rokkan Center for Social Research, Nygardsgaten 5, 5015 Bergen, Norway

Scandinavian Journal of Management (2014) 30, 242—253

KEYWORDSOrganizationaltranslations;Scandinavianinstitutionalism;Reputation management;Diffusion;Legitimacy

Summary This study investigates the translation rules used by Norwegian hospitals to adaptreputation management to their context. Drawing on a linguistics-inspired approach to organi-zational translations developed by Røvik (2007), the study identifies the application of three suchrules, copying, omission, and addition. The study contributes to our understanding of organiza-tional translations by pointing to their regularities, challenging the Scandinavian translationtheory assumption that every translation leads to the emergence of new and unique localversions. The findings show that the hospitals intentionally remove from and add componentsto the reputation management idea in a strikingly similar way. In so finding, the study alsochallenges the assumption often put forward by branding and reputation textbooks that similarityimplies being trapped in conformity.# 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

j our na l h omepa ge : h t tp: // www. el sev ie r. com/l oca te/ sca man

Introduction

The Scandinavian institutionalist notion that ideas are trans-lated as they travel from one setting into another (Czar-niawska & Joerges, 1996; Czarniawska & Sevon, 2005;Sahlin-Andersson, 1996) has gained increased acceptanceamong scholars who seek to understand the diffusion andadoption of management knowledge (Boxenbaum, 2006;Frenkel, 2005a, 2005b; Hwang & Suarez, 2005; Mueller &Whittle, 2011). As it travels, an idea may be subject todifferent types of modifications (‘‘translations’’) and con-tribute to increased heterogeneity in organizational fields.While the conventional expectation of diffusion across fields

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 64 96 63 89.E-mail addresses: arild.waraas@umb.no, arildwa@mac.com (A.

Wæraas), Hogne.Sataoen@uni.no (H.L. Sataøen).1 Tel.: +47 55 58 97 10.

0956-5221/$ — see front matter # 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reservehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.05.002

is homogeneity (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan,1977), the Scandinavian institutionalist notion of translationpaves the way for a closer look at local organizational variations.

In order to improve our understanding of the production oflocal versions of management ideas and homogeneity- andheterogeneity-producing dynamics, this paper combines theScandinavian institutionalist notion of translation of ideaswith Røvik’s (2007) adaptation of insights from the academicdiscipline of translation studies (Gambier & Doorslaer, 2010;Kuhiwczak & Littau, 2007; Venuti, 2004). Following Røvik(2007), we suggest that field members that adopt a particularidea may translate it, not in different and unpredictableways, but in ways that are curiously similar. Just like transla-tions of cultural artifacts, including language, images, andsymbols, adhere to basic patterns, translations of managerialideas may display regularities that can be analyzed andsubsumed under more general translation rules (Røvik,2007). By investigating such regularities, we aim to shedlight not only on organizational translations in general but

d.

Translating reputation management into practice 243

also on the dynamics of field level homogeneity and hetero-geneity. Prior research on the adoption of managementpractices tends to neglect the potential existence and sig-nificance of such regularities. An extensive body of researchexists on the diffusion of practices (Abrahamson, 1996;Lieberman & Asaba, 2006; Rogers, 2003; Strang & Macy,2001; Strang & Meyer, 1994) as well as a growing awarenessthat practices vary as they diffuse (Ansari, Fiss, & Zajac,2010; Lounsbury, 2007; Powell, Gammal, & Simard, 2005).Within translation studies in organizational analysis, thenotion of local variants is a key assumption (Czarniawska &Sevon, 1996; Røvik, 2007; Sahlin-Andersson, 1996). However,to date, no empirical studies have identified patterns oftranslations in specific organizational contexts and examinedtheir common features.

The main contribution of this paper is to draw empiricalattention to such patterns, expanding the study of organiza-tional translations beyond the assumption of heterogeneityas an exclusive field-level outcome of translations. Through astudy of reputation management practices in Norwegianhospitals, which increasingly operate in a market and com-pete for patients, personnel, and resources, we demonstratehow practices result from a rather similar application of aseries of translation rules. Instead of producing multiple localversions of the same idea in the field, parallel understandingsand outcomes of a modified version of reputation manage-ment are identified. The findings thus offer support to aneoinstitutional understanding of field dynamics (DiMaggio& Powell, 1983). The guiding questions for the study are: (1)which translation rules were involved in the translation ofreputation management and (2) what are the implications ofthese rules for the heterogeneity—homogeneity distinctionpertaining to organizational fields?

Our study proceeds as follows: We first review the litera-ture on translations and present four translation rulesderived by Røvik (2007) from the field of translation studies.The empirical setting is described next, followed by a pre-sentation of the methodology. We then detail the findingsfrom our study of the Norwegian hospital field, and concludewith some remarks on the theoretical implications of ourfindings.

Theoretical observations

A number of researchers acknowledge the dominating posi-tion of the neoinstitutional perspective in organizationalanalysis in general (Greenwood, Oliver, Suddaby, & Sahlin,2008) and in our understanding of the dissemination oforganization ideas in particular (Czarniawska & Sevon,2005; DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). Scandinavia has become astronghold for research on these matters (Johansson, 2002;Røvik, 2007): In the introduction to the special issue of theacademic journal Nordic Organization Studies (‘‘NordiskeOrganisasjonsstudier’’) on the neoinstitutional perspective,the tradition is described as having had ‘‘. . . great impact andhas over the last year almost become a dominating theory,perhaps particularly in the Nordic area’’ (issue 3/2009: 3).However, through the concept of ‘‘translation’’, the Scandi-navian version has developed an approach that differs fromits American counterpart. In the following theory section, weoutline the main tenets of the Scandinavian translation

theory, how it differs from the American version, and howRøvik’s theory supplements and expands it. Finally we pre-sent the management idea to be studied in the empiricalpart; reputation management.

The translation perspective on the dissemination of orga-nizational ideas challenges two assumptions made in early(American) neoinstitutional theory. First, while the latter’sunderstanding of diffusion treats ideas primarily as symbolsdecoupled from actual practice (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983;Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Westphal & Zajac, 2001), studiesperformed by Scandinavian institutionalists focus on theactual adoption of new management ideas, using intensive,rich, process-oriented and qualitative approaches (Boxen-baum & Pedersen, 2009). From this perspective, translationinvolves selecting an idea, disembedding it from one setting,and re-embedding it in others (Czarniawska & Sevon, 1996).In the course of this process, the idea is subject to context-specific modifications (Sahlin-Andersson, 1996). The inspira-tion comes from Actor-Network (ANT) theory and its ‘‘sociol-ogy of translation’’ (Callon, 1998; Latour, 1986), andparticularly from Latour’s model of translation (Latour,1987), where agency is attributed to all individuals involvedin the dissemination process. Management ideas are not‘‘just’’ symbols, as they often are portrayed in the neoin-stitutional literature — they turn into practice over timewhile retaining their symbolic value (Røvik, 2011). Theneoinstitutional version of diffusion attributes the first stageof the diffusion process to considerations of instrumentalefficiency, but subsequent adoption is based on considera-tions of legitimacy (Tolbert & Zucker, 1983). However, from atranslation perspective the process is reversed: The reasonfor adopting an institutionalized idea is attributed to sym-bolic considerations of legitimacy, but subsequent events aremore concerned with making sure the idea has lasting effectson performance.

Second, while the neoinstitutional diffusion perspective,at least in its early version, assumes that the field-leveloutcome of decoupling is increased structural homogeneity(isomorphism) between organizations in the same field(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), the translation perspective pre-dicts field-level heterogeneity. When management ideasspread between and across fields with multiple actors mod-ifying it, the field is characterized by a number of ‘‘local’’variants due to context-specific translation processes (Ansariet al., 2010; Czarniawska & Joerges, 1996; Czarniawska &Sevon, 2005; Lounsbury, 2007; Powell et al., 2005; Sahlin &Wedlin, 2008; Sahlin-Andersson, 1996). As a result, manage-ment ideas in one context may not mean the same, or bepracticed the same way, as in other contexts.

However, the Scandinavian translation perspective canitself be challenged. Although the existence of rule-likepatterns of translations has already been suggested (Sah-lin-Andersson, 1996), few empirical studies have addressedthe specific outcomes of such processes. As a result, con-ceptual categories for understanding the conditions underwhich translations may produce heterogeneity or homoge-neity in organizational fields are lacking. In following Røvik’s(2007) argument that such insights can be acquired by relyingon theoretical concepts from the field of translation studies,below we outline how this may occur and how we intend touse those concepts in our study of the translation of reputa-tion management in the Norwegian hospital sector.

244 A. Wæraas, H.L. Sataøen

The rules of translation

Translation studies, sometimes referred to as translatology(Vermeer, 1998), is a cross-disciplinary field drawing oninsights from such diverse academic disciplines as linguistics,computer science, semiotics, history, and comparative lit-erature. Dealing with how cultural artifacts are transferredand translated across source and target contexts, one of itskey contributions is the identification of translation ‘‘stra-tegies’’, ‘‘techniques’’, ‘‘procedures’’ or ‘‘methods’’. For thepurposes of this paper, we rely on Røvik’s (2007) adaptationof these insights to an organizational context, which inaddition to subtraction, alteration, and addition, includesthe copying technique. Røvik refers to these techniques as‘‘rules’’ that guide translation processes and thus influencethe contents of organizational ideas as they are transferredfrom one context to an other. Which rules are used during atranslation process can be inferred ‘‘in hindsight’’ by analyz-ing the outcome of the process (Røvik, 2007, p. 307). The lineof reasoning parallels Sahlin-Andersson (1996) who notes theimplicitness of such rules and that no rules can be found aswritten instructions; nevertheless, ‘‘although there are ‘norules to follow’, each [process] seems to reveal the ‘ruleswhich have been followed’’’ (Sahlin-Andersson, 1996, p. 85).

Both Røvik and Sahlin-Andersson build on Latour’s notionthat actors (or ‘‘actants’’) modify constructs differently atdifferent stages of the diffusion process, ‘‘letting the tokendrop, or modifying it, or deflecing it, or betraying it, oradding to it, or appropriating it’’ (Latour, 1986, p. 267).However, in contrast to Sahlin-Andersson (1996), who pri-marily identifies ‘‘editors’’ and ‘‘editing organizations’’ thatfacilitate translations between organizations, such as privatesector consultancies and the OECD, Røvik’s rules addresstranslation processes that occur inside organizations.Furthermore, in contrast to both Latour and Sahlin-Anders-son, Røvik (2007) assumes that the application of translationrules gives translation processes a certain regularity. A trans-lation rule is thus not to be understood as an unpredictableoutcome of a translation process or a causal mechanism or aresource upon which organizational field members may draw.Nor is it a ‘‘moment of translation’’, as envisaged by ANTscholar Callon (1986). Rather, it calls attention to the generalpatterns of modifications that potentially can be made to thespreading construct during organizational translation pro-cesses. While these modifications are possible to study bothduring and after a translation process, in this case we makeinferences about the rules by examining the outcome of theprocesses.

With the exception of Røvik’s (2007) adaptation of thefield of translation studies for organizational contexts, no onehas attempted to draw on insights from this discipline forempirical research on organizational translations. Thus, ofprimary interest to this study are the four translation rulessuggested by Røvik (2007); copying, addition, omission, andalteration.

Copying is the most basic translation rule. It involves thetransfer of a construct as accurately as possible, with no orvery few changes from the original concept (i.e. ‘‘literal’’translation). It could, of course, be argued that copying is notreally translation since the basic premise of copying is not tochange or transform. Yet, Røvik (2007) observes that copyingis not only a relevant term for describing organizational

translations, it is also a phenomenon and an ideal in manyknowledge transfer processes, as evidenced by, for example,Lamb’s (2011) study of how Chinese business schools havecopied US MBA programs, or the search for best practices(Camp, 1989). Furthermore, copying may be an unintendedbi-product of the unsuccessful attempt to create a localinnovation from a source practice (Røvik, 2007). The possi-bility that certain components of management practices arecopied, while others are modified or omitted, should also notbe overlooked. Thus, to obtain a more complete picture oforganizational translations, understanding translation ascopying serves as a valuable starting point.

Addition means making the idea more explicit and con-crete by adding information that is either unclear or notpresent in the original model. This procedure is well-known inthe translation of language (Røvik, 2007). For example,additions may occur to adapt a message to key characteristicsof the structure of the target language, and to make sure theintended meaning is appropriately and effectively trans-mitted. Similar concerns are relevant for the translation ofmanagerial ideas. Organizational translations may involveadding elements to an idea so as to make it better ‘‘fit’’the formal structure or organizational culture of an organiza-tion. An example is provided by Bowen and Lawler (1992),who argue that performance appraisals should be added tothe practice of Total Quality Management (TQM) in order tomake it work better, despite the advice of Edward Deming,the ‘‘inventor’’ of TQM. Thus, something that is deemed‘‘missing’’ in the original management idea may be addedto make sure that it is better able to serve instrumentalobjectives.

Omission is the opposite of addition; toning down orleaving out some components of an idea. Toning down isthe ‘softer’ version of omission, while leaving out is moreradical (Røvik, 2007). In the field of translation studies, thisrule is referred to as subtraction (Røvik, 2007). Valuable toavoid confusion and unnecessary repetition, the omissionrule can be applied when something is not necessary forpurposes of transmitting the original intended meaning, orthe source construct is not possible to translate into thetarget context. These situations correspond relativelystraightforwardly to organizational contexts. For example,Røvik (2002) notes that elements of the performance appraisalmodel were omitted to make it less provocative in a Norwegiancontext, and Westney (1987) documented how the JapaneseMeiji regime omitted aspects of the imported models so as tomake them better ‘‘fit’’ the Japanese context.

Finally, in contrast to the ideal of literal translation foundin the copying rule, alteration implies multiple degrees offreedom in the modification of an idea. It refers to a radicalmode of translation that leads to a complete transformationof an idea so that it is seen as a local innovation (Røvik, 2007).In the translation of texts, this is sometimes necessary whenthe context referred to in the source text does not exist in theculture of the target text (Vinay & Darbelnet, 1995). In thetranslation of management ideas, such alterations may alsogive direct benefits. For example, again Westney (1987)provides an example by illustrating how the creators of anew police system in Japan combined various elements fromthe French, American, and German administrative systemswith old Japanese samurai traditions into a new and inno-vative police administration.

2 These books emphasize the same components that we outlineabove. For example, van Riel and Fombrun (2007) emphasize thereputation platform while Hannington (2004) emphasizes reputationmeasurements (i.e. genuine concern for reputation).

Translating reputation management into practice 245

These translation rules are assumed to be applicable incases where an idea is transferred from a ‘‘donor’’ contextinto a target context, triggering both decontextualizationand contextualization processes (Røvik, 2007). Decontextua-lization refers to the stage of the translation process wherebyan idea is turned into an abstract representation of a sourcepractice. Contextualization is the process whereby the idea istransferred into a target context. However, even though wemiss out of the decontextualization phase in our study, westill believe Røvik’s theory is applicable, for two reasons:First, valuable knowledge about contextualization processescould be lost if we only study adoption processes wheredonors and target contexts can be identified. For manyorganizations that adopt popular management concepts,there is in reality no clear donor. Modern organizations areexposed to a number of institutionalized general ideas whoseorigins and trajectories remain unclear (Røvik, 2002). Repu-tation management is one of many such ideas. Second, itmakes sense to distinguish analytically between decontex-tualization and contextualization because it enhances ourunderstanding of the various phases of translation processes,and in this study, of the translation of reputation manage-ment. In the case of the Norwegian hospital field, studyingthe translation of reputation management implies identifyingone or several of the four translation rules. In so doing, we areenabled to assess whether translation outcomes are totallyunique or display some common features; in other words,whether they lead to field heterogeneity or homogeneity.

Do translations lead to heterogeneity orhomogeneity?

A core assumption in Scandinavian translation theory is thattranslations are unique. Latour (1986, p. 267), who is a majorsource of inspiration for Scandinavian institutionalists, sug-gests that any object of translation may be added to, appro-priated, and modified, as noted previously. Because it isimpossible to specify in advance which elements of the ideawill be modified and how, or which actors will be involved,translations are likely to unfold differently across differentcontexts and display rather unpredictable trajectories.

When understanding translations as phenomena that aresubject to rule-like regularities, as suggested by Røvik(2007), a different perspective on the outcomes of transla-tions emerges. If translations indeed are characterized byregularities, the use of translation rules determines whetherthe outcome is heterogeneity or homogeneity. For example,in accordance with the notion that translation is transforma-tion (Czarniawska & Joerges, 1996), the alteration ruledenotes the highest degree of heterogeneity. However, ifthe goal in a knowledge transfer process is to copy or imitatea practice as closely as possible, there is much less room forvariation. It is also possible that totally different organiza-tions apply the same translation rule to the same manage-ment idea, in which case the result would be characterizedby significantly less variation than what is predicted byScandinavian translation theory.

A particular translation outcome, therefore, is primarilyan empirical question to be resolved by studying the intro-duction of a practice into a particular context. The task of theresearcher would be to identify the translation rules thatwere used, seek explanations for the use (or choice) of those

rules, and, in our case, assess whether the outcome isincreased field heterogeneity or homogeneity. For example,concerning the explanations, Røvik (2007) suggests that thedegree of transformability of a specific practice is likely toinfluence its fate. If the components of a practice are of atechnical nature and explicitly spelled out, the practice isless transformable and thus more likely to be copied thanaltered. Conversely, if the practice is less explicit, involves anumber of processes and people, and requires complexknowledge, copying is the less likely outcome. Furthermore,the outcome of translations may be influenced by fieldcharacteristics. Organizational fields are characterized byisomorphic pressures, and hospitals in particular are mem-bers of strong institutionalized fields from which they cannotafford to differentiate too much (Ruef & Scott, 1998). Mod-ifications of a particular management idea in a conformity-oriented direction may thus occur to demonstrate propermembership in the field.

Reputation management

Reputation is defined by Fombrun (1996, p. 37) as the ‘‘over-all estimation in which a company is held by its constitu-ents’’. Reputation management, then, is to systematicallyinfluence the perceptions that form this estimation (Elsbach,2006).

As a standard model, reputation management is probablyone of the more abstract institutionalized ideas currentlyavailable to formal organizations, especially compared tomore technical ideas and models such as ISO standards andcertificates (Walgenbach, 2007). As such, the model is not yeta ‘‘template’’, but rather a weak ‘‘prototype’’ (Sahlin &Wedlin, 2008). Still, the contents of the reputation manage-ment idea, as it is presented in popular textbooks — inter-national as well as Scandinavian — do display some commonfeatures and recommendations that the practice shouldimply at the very minimum. Converging around a set ofgeneral components of reputation management, three repu-tation management textbooks published in Norway (Apeland,2009; Brønn & Ihlen, 2009; Johannessen, Olaisen, & Olsen,2009) convey the typical view of the reputation managementmodel as it has been circulating in Norway and ultimatelybecome a source of inspiration for reputation-seeking hospi-tals. The components are not emphasized to the same extentby all these authors, but they are certainly recurring themes,and they included in normative recommendations for how tomanage reputation. We also note the clear inspiration frommore established textbooks published for an internationalaudience (Dowling, 2001; Fombrun & van Riel, 2004; Griffin,2008; Hannington, 2004).2 The four components are:

a) A genuine preoccupation with reputation.

b) Definition of reputation platform.

c) Strategic self-presentation.

d) Differentiation.

246 A. Wæraas, H.L. Sataøen

First, and most simply, organizations should have a gen-uine concern for their reputation. Every organization has areputation, and failure to acknowledge this can lead todecreased performance and losing in the face of competitors.This preoccupation should not only include taking reputationissues seriously but also tracking and measuring reputation asa basis for further improvement. As Apeland (2009, p. 13)notes on the importance of measuring reputation, ‘‘whoeverdoes not pay attention, but continue to work on the basis of agut feeling or old knowledge, will lose their position’’.3

Second, organizations should define a platform thatincludes official descriptions of actual and desired organiza-tional identity. According to Apeland (2009, p. 104), ‘‘(a)reputation platform is, briefly stated, a description of thereputation that the organization wishes to have’’. And, asobserved by Johannessen et al. (2009, p. 30): ‘‘The organiza-tion must first know how it perceives its own reputation andthe reputation it wants to have’’. In establishing this, a basisfor a gap analysis is provided in which future actions aimed at‘‘closing the gap’’ between actual and desired identity and/or desired reputation may be revealed. Brønn and Ihlen(2009, p. 14) note that ‘‘there are two core questions thatshould drive the reputation management process: ‘Who arewe’ and ‘who do we want to be’’’.

Third, reputation management implies communicatingidentity through a range of expressive means. A good reputa-tion, according to Brønn and Ihlen (2009, p. 21), is built onrelations, and ‘‘relations follow from communication’’. As aresult, it is crucial for reputation-seeking organizations toconvey their reputation platform through various expressivemeans such as core values, vision statements, and visualsymbols, both to internal and external audiences. This stra-tegic self-presentation produces awareness, emotionalappeal, and identification with the organization (Apeland,2009).

Fourth, differentiation is a key element of reputationmanagement. As competitive advantage requires strategicpositioning and services or products that customers are ableto positively distinguish from competitors (Porter, 1980),building a unique reputation is the goal. As noted by Brønnand Ihlen (2009, p. 30), ‘‘(t)he organization should beunique’’, and furthermore, ‘‘the key [to a good reputation]is finding out what makes the organization different fromother organizations’’. If the attempts fail, the result is acliched and uniform presentation of the organization,referred to by Antorini and Schultz (2005, p. 60) as a ‘‘con-formity trap’’ that all organizations should seek to avoid.

Given the above, what could be expected with respect topotential modifications of the reputation management ideain Norwegian hospitals? Diffusion theory, i.e. its neoinstitu-tional version, which we have outlined as a contrast toScandinavian institutionalism, predicts no or very littlechange. It stresses a homogeneous and mostly symbolicuse of management ideas, predicting only the adoption ofreputation management but not really its adaptation foractual use (c.f. Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Westphal & Zajac,2001). Conversely, in accordance with Latour (1987),

3 All quotes from these books are translated from Norwegian by theauthors.

Scandinavian translation theory predicts the alteration ofsome or all the above outlined components, but in differentand rather unpredictable ways (Czarniawska & Joerges,1996; Czarniawska & Sevon, 2005; Sahlin-Andersson,1996). Our approach, which follows Røvik’s (2007) integra-tion of the neighboring discipline of ‘‘translatology’’ withScandinavian translation theory, predicts anything fromalmost no change to radical change, depending on the trans-lation rule involved. Before presenting the findings and dis-cussing which prediction is more correct, we outline themethodology that underpins this study.

Methods

Research context

The Norwegian hospital field currently consists of 21 largehospitals, owned and run by the central government throughfour regional health care agencies. Until 2002, the number ofhospitals was at least four times greater (depending on thedefinition of ‘hospital’). A series of mergers implemented bythe central government reduced the total number of hospi-tals to 27 in 2007, 26 in 2006, and 21 in 2011.

With its corporate roots, reputation management seemsunlikely in a public sector hospital setting where concern forequity and similarity traditionally have been strong (Sataøen& Wæraas, 2010). However, following a number of New PublicManagement-inspired reforms, Norwegian hospitals cur-rently compete for patients and are financially rewardedor sanctioned through a Diagnostics Related Groups (DRG)model depending on how they perform. Following the intro-duction of the 2001 patient choice act, a hospital region mustalso cover travel and treatment costs if the patients of onehospital chose to receive care at a different hospital. How-ever, the hospital would ‘‘profit’’ from attracting patientsfrom other regions. A benchmarking system comparing thehospitals across a number of performance indicators, pub-lished on the Internet, makes it easier for prospectivepatients to reach informed decisions about the quality andperformance of the hospitals. As a result, hospitals need astrong reputation to attract more patients and qualifiedpersonnel and ultimately perform better financially. Thisbackground paves the way for the introduction of reputationmanagement practices.

Data collection

In order to probe into our research questions, we collecteddata from three sources: Two consecutive rounds of inter-views with follow-ups, electronic documents (strategy docu-ments and websites), and direct observations.

The research project began in the fall of 2006 with atelephone survey conducted with all hospitals’ communica-tion directors. We asked questions about their communica-tion practices, the importance of reputation, and theirstrategies on a more general basis. The survey was supple-mented with a study of the hospitals’ web pages in the fall of2007, the purpose of which was to assess the hospitals’expressiveness and analyze the means by which they com-municated their organizational identities. We looked atselected strategic identity markers such as logos, core value

Translating reputation management into practice 247

statements, slogans, and vision and mission statements. Theweb study was repeated in 2010, at which point we alsocollected a selection of the hospitals’ strategy documents(those that were available online; 13 in total) to support ouranalysis.

With the information from the 2006 telephone and 2007web surveys, we carried out a second and more focused roundof telephone interviews in the fall of 2008, this time exe-cuted as semi-structured conversations that focused on spe-cific aspects of the previous findings. Questions involved thebackground and work of communication directors, strategiesincluding the importance of managing reputation, prioritizedtasks, and the directors’ assessment of the hospitals’ relationto their environments. While analyzing the findings, wecarried out follow-up interviews by telephone in 2010 withthree selected informants in order to complete and correctour findings on specific topics. As a result of the mergers andsome communication directors accepting jobs elsewhere, 13directors were added to the informant group and 14 were‘‘lost’’. In total, 54 interviews were conducted with 39informants in the course of 4 years.

Direct and open observations were used to validate thefindings from the two other studies. The observations wereconducted in two different hospitals over a period of threeweeks. During this period the information department’s dailywork was scrutinized by one of the authors through partici-pation in meetings, workshops and routine work, includingfour board meetings.

Data analysis

We could not ask our interviewees direct questions abouttheir use of translation rules, as the topic certainly would beconfusing. It should also be noted that this is not a study ofreal-time translations, but of indicators that allow us to saysomething about translation outcomes. Therefore, our ana-lytical approach implied analyzing the use and content of thecomponents of reputation management as noted above inorder to assess the potential correspondence with thefour translation rules, using multiple sources of data. Thegoal was to assess the degree of translation for each of thecomponents; concern for reputation, the identification of areputation platform, strategic self-presentation, and differ-entiation. To the extent that it was possible, each of themwere coded according to whether they were copied, addedto, omitted, or altered. However, the coding was guidedwithout a clearly specified list of criteria for determiningwhen a component displayed evidence of having been sub-jected to one or more of these rules. Instead, we reliedinductively on the patterns and findings that emerged fromour data sources to make inferences about the nature anddegree of translations. For example, we discovered that themajority of the hospitals had a self-developed logo, whichsupports the interpretation that the strategic self-presenta-tion component was copied. We also noted that the majorityof the logos expressed similar values and characteristics. Wecoded this as the omission of differentiation for this parti-cular type of identity marker. We also analyzed the contentsof the interviewees’ responses, looking for statements thatcould either verify or cast doubt over these findings. Wefound substantial agreement between them and the inter-viewees’ responses.

Trustworthiness of the data

Given the interpretive nature of our analysis, concepts suchas reliability and validity have less relevance (Lincoln &Guba, 1985). However, in accordance with Lincoln and Guba’srecommendations, we implemented a number of measures tosafeguard data trustworthiness. The extended engagementin the field by one of the researchers, triangulation of datatypes (interviews, documents, observations), and the inclu-sion of the entire population of hospitals in our samplecontribute to the credibility of our data, which accordingto Lincoln and Guba correspond to the functionalist notion ofinternal validity. To ensure transferability, i.e. external valid-ity, we seek to supply sufficient information about the hos-pital context to enable readers to relate our findings to theirown positions. To ensure dependability, i.e. reliability, wehave given a detailed account of how we collected data andanalyzed it. Finally, to ensure confirmability, i.e. objectivity,we relied on verbatim transcription of interviews, carefulnotes of observations, and triangulation of data sources, asnoted above.

Findings

Genuine concern for reputation: copied

Our findings clearly reveal that the hospitals reflect on theirreputation, have verbal labels for it, and maintain continu-ing discussions on it. This is confirmed both by the observa-tional data from the information departments, by theinterviews with the communication directors, and by thestrategy documents. For example, in 2006, 24 of 26 com-munication directors confirmed that reputation was a recur-ring theme at board meetings. 18 of them noted thatreputation was a separate topic in their strategy documents,and half of them had already conducted a reputation assess-ment of their hospital. All of them assumed that hospitalreputation was important or very important for patientchoice. 2 years later, 23 of 25 communication directorsrevealed that their hospital had had their reputation mea-sured. Our interviews and observations revealed that thehospitals treated reputation as an objective measure similarto DRG points production, personnel absences, and financialliquidity. At no point did the communication directors indi-cate that reputation was not important. Two quotes illus-trate their focus:

We want to show that we are a good hospital. Promotingourselves is not relevant beyond acquiring a good reputa-tion in general. Having a good reputation is the goal.

We are competing for the best reputation, I would say,because having a good reputation is a value in its own. Andbecause we are pressured by the board toward being clearand creating a good reputation.

The strategy plans reflected the same focus, representa-tive quotes being ‘‘hospital X is to develop further its profileand reputation’’, ‘‘Employees, middle managers, and uppermanagement all co-manage hospital X’s reputation’’, ‘‘wewant to promote and support staff and units that contributeto the hospital’s good reputation’’, an so on.

Table 1 Reputation management activities and their respec-tive frequencies in three studies.

Phone survey(2006)

Web study(2007)

Web study(2010)

Logoa 18 20 13Core value

statementa12 14 13

Vision or missionstatementa

16c 12 13

Slogan 8c 6 6N 26 28b 21b

a Only identity markers created by the hospitals’ own initiatives areincluded. Markers imposed by regional health authorities, which thehospitals in those regions are required to use, are excluded.b Denotes the entire population of hospitals. The total number was

reduced through mergers from 28 in 2007 to 21 in 2010.c The number is higher than for the subsequent years because it

includes vision statements/slogans targeted at employees.

248 A. Wæraas, H.L. Sataøen

Some of the activities could, obviously, be perceived asceremonial, such as the somewhat pompous statements inthe strategic plans. Nevertheless, in sum, the hospitals havecopied the most basic element of reputation management;they are concerned with their reputation beyond the sym-bolic level; they talk about it behind closed doors, it is part oftheir strategic thinking, they value it, monitor, and measureit, all with the purpose of building a better reputation.

Definition of reputation platform: omitted

The large majority of the hospitals have developed corevalues and mission and vision statements (see below), whichare important expressions of an underlying identity. Also,references to central organizational characteristics are fre-quently made in the 13 strategic plans we analyzed. How-ever, the development of these measures did not occurthrough the type of comprehensive, soul-searching processthat normally would be expected from standard reputationmanagement thinking, in which gaps between desired andactual identity are revealed. The strategies, core values,mission and vision statements, as well as the logos, were theoutput of multiple more or less coordinated processes andinitiatives; some from one process, some from others, butnone from a single, coherent process of creating a platformexplicitly connected with the reputation management idea.As we shall see below, the identity markers used to expressthese organizational characteristics were more a represen-tation of a general hospital identity than of unique andinstitution-specific identities.

The lack of such processes can be attributed to a numberof factors. The interviewees revealed that the newly mergedhospitals were struggling with identity questions on a dailybasis, torn between various overarching identities (e.g. busi-ness versus welfare, professional versus political) as well asmultiple local identities related to the previously indepen-dent, now merged units. In addition, the ability as well asneed to define identity were severely impaired by insecuritywithin the field due to past and upcoming mergers, changes inmanagement structures, and turnover of key personnelinvolved in these processes, chief administrators as well ascommunication directors. Moreover, growing involvement ofregional health authorities in imposing stricter guidelineswith respect to the hospitals’ external presentation of iden-tity prevented some of them from developing a more inde-pendent focus.

In sum, these context-specific conditions required thehospitals to tone down their search for a platform of actualand desired organizational features. This is perhaps not verysurprising for those hospitals (eight in total) that werethreatened by upcoming mergers or instructed by theirregional health authorities in matters of identity. However,the fact that the other hospitals that were not threatened bymergers, or not instructed by their regional health autho-rities, also refrained from pursuing such comprehensiveprocesses, is noteworthy and somewhat surprising. It isperhaps even more surprising considering the fact thatfew of them had problems identifying unique aspects oftheir identities. Interviewees were able to quickly presenta range of features, their answers even revealing quite a bitof pride. Two examples:

Yes, absolutely, we are [unique]. Both in terms of locationand what we do. The fact that we are where we are,makes things special. For example telemedicine. We havedigital systems. In Oslo, they send x-ray photos by taxicabs. We do it digitally. And arctic problems like injuriesfrom extreme cold and things like that. So, it’s locationand competence.

Yes, we are unique in the sense that we are organized inaccordance with the patient cycle rather than traditionaldepartments. And that is something that other hospitalswant to copy. For example, in the process of mergingseveral hospitals in the capital, we were looked to as agood role model.

However, as we shall see below, the most importantreason for not emphasizing more the development and defi-nition of a unique organizational identity is the hospitals’general unwillingness to differentiate from each other. Ifthey see no reason to differentiate, searching for a uniqueidentity platform is redundant. This is despite the impor-tance attached to this activity by influential reputationmanagement textbooks and experts, and despite the hospi-tals’ awareness of their own unique identity characteristics.

Strategic self-presentation: copied

The lack of a coherently defined platform does not preventthe hospitals from developing a range of expressive meansand using them to influence external perceptions. Theyappear to forcefully embrace this particular component ofreputation management, even just a few years after the 2002hospital reform. Also, they have become increasingly eagerover the years to adopt these means, as illustrated by thetable below (Table 1).

While the number of hospitals was reduced from 28 in 2006to 21 in 2010 through a series of forced mergers, the use offour expressive identity markers; logos, core value state-ments, vision or mission statements, and slogans, hasincreased relative to the number of hospitals in the same

Table 3 Slogans, and vision and mission statements.

a. [Our] hospital shall be a basis for security for thepopulation of Finnmark. We will provide specialist services ofhigh quality characterized by respect, openness, andaccessibility (vision statement)b. We will create a hospital characterized by cooperation,learning, and job satisfaction (vision statement)c. Through patient focus and collaboration, our hospital shallsecure a safe and future oriented provision of services basedon the values of quality, care, and respect (mission)d. We shall promote health and quality of life (vision)e. Promoting health and quality of life in the west (vision)f. Good and equal health care services for everyone whoneeds it, when they need it, irrespective of age, place ofdwelling, ethnical background, gender, and financialsituation (vision)g. Security when you need it the most (vision)h. Close to humans — academically strong (vision)i. We care — together we take charge (slogan)j. Our competence — your security (slogan)k. It is all about people (slogan)l. Promoting health and quality of life (slogan)

Source: Hospital web pages (2010).

Translating reputation management into practice 249

period. The exception is the use of logos. As of December2010, all 21 hospitals have a logo, but eight share the samelogo because their regional health authorities have imposedon them the use of a particular logo. Thus, all those whohave the possibility of developing their own logo, have doneso.

Judging from the above indicators, the hospitals areclearly expressive organizations, having copied strategicmeans commonly associated with reputation management.Whether a hospital seeks to differentiate itself or not throughself-presentation does not seem to be a necessary conditionfor developing a self-presentation program. Our data indi-cate that this component of reputation management can becopied regardless of the organization’s intentions with it. Thereason is probably that self-presentation is technicallystraightforward (Røvik, 2007).

Differentiation: omitted

Differentiating solely on the basis of identity markers isdifficult (Antorini & Schultz, 2005). A uniqueness paradoxis at play in the sense that all organizations are unique, butstruggle to express their uniqueness (Martin, Feldman,Hatch, & Sitkin, 1983). Norwegian hospitals clearly face thischallenge. When looking at the markers used in their webpresentations, it is difficult to see clear patterns of differ-entiation. For example, the 17 core value statements from2010 consist of a total of 35 values, of which almost two thirds(24) refer to a fairly limited selection of general values suchas respect, accessibility, quality, and professional compe-tence (Table 2). All these values are clearly relevant forhospitals, but convey little specific information that coulddifferentiate one hospital from another. The most frequentlyexpressed values could be embraced by virtually any kind oforganization.

Also when looking at vision and mission statements,impressions of similarity are more often invoked than dif-ference. All statements convey characteristics and valuesthat any type of hospital could subscribe to; health, security,care, quality of life, patient treatment, equality, and so on(Table 3). Although some hospitals reveal serious ambitionsin their strategic plans (e.g. ‘‘transforming the hospital intoa fully-fledged hospital with urgent care capacity’’), no

Table 2 Core values sorted by frequency.

Values Frequency

Respect 8Accessibility, involvement, user influence 8Quality 4Professional competence, knowledge 4Openness 3Security 2Care 2Equality 1Prioritization 1Involvement 1Predictability 1

Source: Hospital web pages (2010).

hospital stands out with a particularly different or niche-oriented position. Judging from the data, the hospitals arebasically portraying themselves as doing the same thing:Promoting universal health care services characterized byquality, respect, and care. They are hospitals, and want to berecognized as such.

The only identity marker that displays some kind ofvariation are the logos. A sun, flying penguin, butterflies,circles, crosses, and some stylistic symbols, are among theofficial representations of the hospitals’ identities (seeAppendix 1). However, despite the variation in shapes andcolors, the logos partly represent quite similar characteris-tics (human being in focus), partly they are general (circles),and partly they represent values and characteristics that aretypical for any hospital (the cross).

The omission of differentiation could potentially beunderstood in two ways. Either it is an unwanted and unin-tentional effect of reputation building, or it reflects a strat-egy of emphasizing a generic hospital identity. Either way,the standard interpretation from the reputation manage-ment perspective is that the hospitals fail to differentiateand, as a result, find themselves trapped in conformity(Antorini & Schultz, 2005).

However, being trapped in conformity presupposes thatorganizations want to differentiate and that it is a problem ifthey do not. The large majority of our informants seem tohave a different view. While four directors of communicationacknowledge a need for differentiation, the rest of themreject it, emphasizing instead the common identity theyshare as members of the same organizational field. Twodirectors observe the following:

4 Private clinic located in Oslo.

250 A. Wæraas, H.L. Sataøen

Do [we] really need to be so damn special and differenti-ated, after all? I think it’s better to be similar. It is unwiseto differentiate. If you have to be special, do it ontreatment and be part of the big family! And if you don’twant to be part of the big family, well then you can startworking at Colosseum Clinic!4

I think this is deeply rooted [in the notion that] localhospitals should represent a wide variety of services. It’slike the Norwegian social democracy — the notion ofequality — that a local hospital in Sarpsborg should bejust like a local hospital in Nordmøre or in Finnmark.

The quotes suggest that standard reputation manage-ment reasoning does not apply to Norwegian hospitals.Similarity is not a problem, on the contrary; differentiationis. As a whole, differentiation is simply not part of thehospitals’ reputation management efforts; it is partly irre-levant, partly an act of disloyalty to the others. The hospitalsbuild reputation while preserving a sense of unity and simi-larity among themselves. Thus, the quotes not only shedlight on the reasons why the hospitals have refrained fromengaging in a search for a unique identity platform, as notedabove, but also on the reasons why the content of thehospitals’ self-presentation does not reflect unique charac-teristics.

Similarity concerns: added

Instead of differentiation, similarity concerns have beenadded to the practice of reputation management in theNorwegian hospital field. As we have seen through therepeated answers given by our interviewees, the observa-tions made in the hospitals, and the contents of the webelements as revealed by the two web studies, an importantpurpose of the hospitals’ strategic self-presentation is not tostand out from their peers or create a distinct hospital brand.Instead they seek to be perceived as a hospital with all itsgeneral meanings, just like any other hospital. This is aserious modification of the reputation management idea,as it is more in accordance with conventional neoinstitutionalthinking than with reputation literatures. Similarity ensuresacceptance by the institutional environments, reducesthreats to legitimacy, and boosts success and survival cap-abilities (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008). The addition ofsimilarity thus suggests that considerations of legitimacyare more important than reputation, and that these consid-erations are so strong that they lead to the addition of acomponent that reputation textbooks reject.

In sum, the findings give a sufficiently clear picture of themodifications of the reputation management idea to suggestthat they are characterized by discernable patterns. Skep-tics, and reputation management proponents in particular,might ask what is left of reputation management, arguingthat the local practice no longer ‘‘looks like’’ reputationmanagement (e.g. ‘‘is this really reputation management’’?).The original model has been disassembled and reassembledinto a local practice with fewer and different components.However, whether or not it resembles the ‘‘original’’ prac-tice, or even is referred to as reputation management by the‘‘translators’’, is besides the point. From the translation

studies perspective outlined here, the expectation is thatthe meaning of reputation management changes across con-texts — not despite the existence and use of translation rules,but because of them.

Theoretical contributions

In finding patterns of modified components of standard repu-tation management thinking, this study offers insights intoour understanding of changes in management ideas followingtheir adoption in specific contexts, as well as of how transla-tion outcomes influence field level characteristics such asconformity and heterogeneity. While the standard neoinsti-tutional approach to diffusions predicts little or no change tomanagement ideas because practices are mainly symbolsthat need to remain visible, the overall impression fromthe data is clearly that the hospitals have not implementedreputation management with all its ‘‘recommended’’ com-ponents. This finding is consistent with Scandinavian transla-tion theory, which posit that ideas change as they move intoand across organizational fields. It is also clearly consistentwith Latour who rejects the notion that ideas are ‘‘effort-lessly gliding through space as a result of their own impetus’’(Latour, 1987, p. 132). Rather, the path that ideas such asreputation management take when entering a field is part ofthe normal ‘‘order of things’’, according to the ANT perspec-tive. As Latour underscores, translation concerns the enroll-ment of ‘‘others so that believe it, buy it and disseminate itacross time and space’’. Consequently, reputation manage-ment in a hospital does not mean the same as reputationmanagement in e.g. a bank.

However, neither Latour nor Scandinavian translationtheory account for the patterns identified in the data.Furthermore, the hospitals’ insistence on strategic similarityis inconsistent with the Scandinavian translation theory andLatour’s assumption that translations are unique and hetero-geneity-producing social mechanisms. On this point, thefindings are more in accordance with the neoinstitutionalnotion of homogeneity (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer &Rowan, 1977).

Based on insights from the neoinstitutional perspective,we could hypothesize that institutionalized fields provideparticularly strong incentives for field members to add andomit elements of the translating construct. Such fields seekto protect prevailing institutional orders, which in our caseseems to have motivated the hospitals to reject the differ-entiation component and add the similarity concern.Although mimetic forces may have motivated the hospitalsto adopt reputation management in the first place, thefindings are consistent with the North-American neoinstitu-tional view that normative isomorphic forces, typical for suchfields (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), push field members towardgreater degrees of homogeneity. Hospital fields are arguablyone of the most highly institutionalized fields examined inempirical research (Scott, Ruef, Mendel, & Caronna, 2000),in part due to the strong professional norms that dominatesuch fields and protect the prevailing institutional order. Asnoted by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), the more profession-alism in the field, the more isomorphism.

While Scandinavian translation theory distances itselffrom isomorphism assumptions and, by doing so, has createdits own version (or ‘‘translation’’) of institutional theory, our

Translating reputation management into practice 251

findings reconnect organizational translation research withits North-American roots. The findings challenge the assump-tion made by Scandinavian translation theorists that everytranslation leads to the emergence of new and unique localversions. Assuming that the findings presented here havegeneral validity, they suggest that the local versions thatemerge in an organizational field share salient features. Evenif field members employ different rules, and the use of theserules is arbitrary, the resulting variation will still be consid-erably less than what is predicted by Scandinavian translationtheory.

Through these findings, the study also contributes to thegrowing general literature on modifications and adaptationsof organizational practices (e.g. Ansari et al., 2010) by addingempirical evidence of the outcomes of such modifications.More specifically, the findings are a confirmation that pat-terns and regularities of translations, here operationalized inthe form of translation rules, are valuable keys to under-standing the question of ‘‘what happens’’ when practices areadopted in specific organizational contexts. Drawing inspira-tion from the field of translation studies does not just makesense theoretically, as observed by Røvik (2007), but alsoempirically. Management ideas can be conceived of as con-sisting of different components that can be copied, omitted,added to, or altered or mixed together with other compo-nents into a new innovation, just like translations of othercultural expressions. Depending on the mix of these rules, thetranslating organization performs anything from no or almostno modification to radical transformations. The findings thussupport Røvik’s (2007) effort to distance Scandinavian trans-lation theory from some of the basic arguments of Actor-Network theory, integrating it instead with a translatology-inspired line of reasoning.

Finally, the above challenges the notion put forward inreputation and branding literatures that conformity is aproblem. As we have seen, it is not: The communicationdirectors generally reject the notion of differentiation, pre-ferring instead to be perceived as ‘normal’ hospitals. Thismeans that differentiation may not be an ideal solution evenif a field is characterized by growing competitive pressures.Several observations from this study highlight importantaspects of such fields, including the general turbulence inthe field which affected the hospitals similarly; the need for

legitimacy — which is universal — but perhaps particularlysalient in the hospital field; and expectations of similaritywithin the field. Thus, conformity is not necessarily a ‘trap’,it may be a strategic choice in the same way as differentia-tion (Deephouse, 1999). Conformity does not seem to be anobstacle for self-expression. When organizations copy theself-presentation component of reputation management, thefindings highlight the possibility that similarity-orientedorganizations can be just as expressive as what can beexpected from reputation management theory. The differ-ence is that similarity-oriented organizations are communi-cating on the basis of shared rather than uniqueorganizational characteristics.

Concluding remarks

The main findings in this research can be summarized asfollows: (1) The idea of managing reputation found its trans-lated form in the Norwegian hospital field through the use ofthree specific translation rules: Copying, omission, and addi-tion. (2) The field level outcome of the translation processesis homogeneity, as the hospitals prefer promoting general andsimilar hospital characteristics, but we do not maintain thatthis outcome implies a conformity trap. The findings suggestthat reputation management literatures may be overstatingthe importance of differentiation, while ignoring the benefitsof similarity. On the basis of these results, we encouragefuture empirical studies that focus on the regularities oftranslations, the variation in rules, and how their outcomesare connected with ‘‘real-time’’ translation work. How rule-like organizational translation processes unfold in practice,which alternatives and components are negotiated, con-tested, and merged, remain open-ended questions. Exploringthem could contribute tremendously to a more coherenttheory of organizational translations.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank John W. Meyer, Turid Moldenæs,Kjell Arne Røvik, Guje Sevon, and the anonymous SJMreviewers for feedback on earlier versions of this article.

Appendix A. [{(Appendix 1: Logos used by 13 hospitals. Source: Hospital web pages (2010))}]

Symbolicmeaning

Logos

The cross/medical help

The human being in focus

Animal characteristics

Circles

Others

252 A. Wæraas, H.L. Sataøen

We also thank Randi Østhus for her effort during the firstround of data collection.

References

Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 21, 254—285.

Ansari, S., Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2010). Made to fit: How practicesvary as they diffuse. Academy of Management Review, 35, 67—92.

Antorini, Y. M., & Schultz, M. (2005). Corporate branding and theconformity trap. In M. Schultz, Y. M. Antorini, & F. F. Csaba (Eds.),Corporate branding. Purpose/people/processes (pp. 57—78).København: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Apeland, N. M. (2009). Det gode selskap. Omdømmebygging i praksis,Oslo: Hippocampus.

Bowen, D. E., & Lawler, E. E. (1992). Total quality oriented humanresource management. Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 29—41.

Boxenbaum, E. (2006). Lost in translation. The making of Danishdiversity management. American Behavioral Scientist, 49,939—948.

Boxenbaum, E., & Pedersen, J. S. (2009). Scandinavian institution-alism — a case of institutional work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby,& B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work. Actors and agency in insti-tutional studies of organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Brønn, P. S., & Ihlen, Ø. (2009). Apen eller innadvendt? Omdømme-bygging for organisasjoner Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.

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. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.

Callon, M. (1998). Actor-network theory — The market test. In J. Law& J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after. Oxford:Blackwell.

Camp, R. C. (1989). Benchmarking. The search for industry bestpractices that lead to superior performance. Milwauke, WI: ASQCQuality Press.

Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of ideas. In B. Czar-niawska & G. Sevon (Eds.), Translating organizational change.Berlen: DeGruyter.

Czarniawska, B., & Sevon, G. (1996). Introduction. In B. Czarniawska& G. Sevon (Eds.), Translating organizational change. Berlin:DeGruyter.

Czarniawska, B., & Sevon, G. (2005). Global ideas. How ideas objectsand practices travel in the global economy. Malmo: Liber.

Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s aquestion (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Manage-ment Journal, 20, 147—166.

Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. C. (2008). Legitimacy in organiza-tional institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R.Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institu-tionalism (pp. 49—77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited:Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organiza-tional fields. American Sociological Review, 31, 147—160.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The new institutionalism inorganizational analysis: Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J.DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational anal-ysis, Chicago and London (pp. 1—38).

Translating reputation management into practice 253

Dowling, G. R. (2001). Creating corporate reputations: Identity,image, and performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elsbach, K. D. (2006). Organizational perception management. Mah-wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corpo-rate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Fombrun, C. J., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Fame and fortune: Howsuccessful companies build winning reputations. Upper SaddleRiver: Prentice Hall.

Frenkel, M. (2005a). The politics of translation: How state-levelpolitical relations affect the cross-national travel of managementideas. Organization, 12, 275—301.

Frenkel, M. (2005b). Something new, something old, somethingborrowed: The cross-national translation of the ‘family friendlyorganization’ in Israel. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.),Global ideas: How ideas, objects and practices travel in theglobal economy (pp. 147—166). Malmo: Liber.

Gambier, Y., & Doorslaer, L. v. (2010). Handbook of translationstudies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub Co.

Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., & Sahlin, K. (2008). The SAGEhandbook of organizational institutionalism. Los Angeles/Lon-don: SAGE.

Griffin, A. (2008). New strategies for reputation management:Gaining control of issues, crises, and corporate social responsi-bility. London: Kogan Page.

Hannington, T. (2004). How to measure and manage your corporatereputation. Burlington: Gower Publishing.

Hwang, H., & Suarez, D. (2005). Lost and found in the translation ofstrategic plans and websites. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.),Global ideas: How ideas, objects and practices travel in theglobal economy (pp. 71—93). Malmo: Liber.

Johannessen, J.-A., Olaisen, J., & Olsen, B. (2009). Omdømme.rykte, sladder og tøvprat. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk.

Johansson, R. (2002). Nyinstitutionalismen inom organisationsana-lysen: En skolbildnings uppkomst, spridning och utveckling. Lund:Studentlitteratur.

Kuhiwczak, P., & Littau, K. (2007). A companion to translationstudies. Clevedon/Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.

Lamb, P. (2011). Eclipsing adaptation: The translation of the US MBAmodel in China. Management Learning, 43, 217—230.

Latour, B. (1986). The powers of association. In J. Law (Ed.), Power,action and belief. London: Routledge.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action — How to follow scientists andengineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Lieberman, M. B., & Asaba, S. (2006). Why do firms imitate eachother? Academy of Management Journal, 31, 366—385.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities. Competing logics andpractice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 50, 289—307.

Martin, J., Feldman, M. S., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B. (1983). Theuniqueness paradox in organizational stories. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 28, 438.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations:Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal ofSociology, 83, 340—363.

Mueller, F., & Whittle, A. (2011). Translating management ideas: Adiscursive devices analysis. Organization Studies, 32, 187—210.

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustainingsuperior performance. New York: Free Press.

Powell, W. W., Gammal, D. L., & Simard, C. (2005). Close encounters:The circulation and reception of managerial practices in the San

Francisco Bay Area nonprofit community. In B. Czarniawska & G.Sevon (Eds.), Global ideas. How ideas, objects and practicestravel in the global economy. Malmo: Liber.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York,NY: Free Press.

Røvik, K. A. (2002). The secrets of the winners: Management ideasthat flow. In K. Sahlin & L. Engwall (Eds.), The expansion ofmanagement knowledge. Carriers, flows, and sources. Stanford:Stanford Business Books.

Røvik, K. A. (2007). Trender og translasjoner. Ideer som former det21. arhundrets organisasjoner, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Røvik, K. A. (2011). From fashion to virus: An alternative theory oforganizations’ handling of management ideas. Organization Stud-ies, 32, 631—653.

Ruef, M., & Scott, W. R. (1998). A multidimensional model oforganizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institu-tional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43,877—904.

Sahlin, K., & Wedlin, L. (2008). Circulating ideas: Imitation, transla-tion and editing. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R.Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institu-tionalism. London: Sage.

Sahlin-Andersson, K. (1996). Imitating by editing success: The con-struction of organizational fields. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon(Eds.), Translating organizational change (pp. 69—93). New York:Walter de Gruyter.

Sataøen, H. L., & Wæraas, A. (2010). Part of the big family? Theambiguity of brand leadership in the public sector. In J. Ramirez(Ed.), Public leadership. New York, NY: Nova Publishers.

Scott, R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P., & Caronna, C. (2000). Institutionalchange and health care organizations: From professionaldominance to managed care. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Strang, D., & Macy, M. (2001). In search of excellence: Fads, successstories, and adaptive emulation. American Journal of Sociology,107, 147—182.

Strang, D., & Meyer, J. (1994). Institutional conditions for diffusion.In W. R. Scott & J. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional environments andorganizations: Structural complexity and individualism (pp. 100—112). London: Sage.

Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of changein the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civilservice reform, 1880—1935. Administrative Science Quarterly,28, 22—39.

van Riel, C. B. M., & Fombrun, C. (2007). Essentials of corporatecommunication. Implementing practices for effective reputationmanagement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Venuti, L. (2004). The translation studies reader (2nd ed.). New York:Routledge.

Vermeer, H. J. (1998). Starting to unask what translatology is about.Target, 10, 41—68.

Vinay, J.-P., & Darbelnet, (1995). Comparative stylistics of Frenchand English: A methodology for translation. Amsterdam: Ben-jamins.

Walgenbach, P. (2007). Facade and means of control: The use of ISO9000 standards. In L. Theuvsen, A. Spiller, M. Peupert, & G. Jahn(Eds.), Quality management in food chains. Wageningen (pp. 29—43). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

Westney, D. E. (1987). Imitation and innovation. The transfer ofwestern organizational patterns in Meiji Japan. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (2001). Decoupling policy frompractice: The case of stock repurchase programs. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 46, 202—228.