I use rhetorical theory to reconceptualize the diffusion of managerial practices. Specifically, I argue that the diffusion of a practice depends on the discursive justifications used to rationalize it. When such justifications are accepted and taken for granted, a practice reaches a state of institutionalization. Furthermore, I propose that changes in justifications and diffusion provide a basis for explaining institutionalization as both a process and a state. I then develop several propositions from this model.The management field has witnessed the rise and fall of many managerial practices, including sensitivity training, quality circles, and reengineering (Carson, Lanier, Carson, & Guidry, 2000;Eccles, Nohria, & Berkley, 1992). Most management innovations arrive and dissipate quickly (Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999), while a few thrive and diffuse broadly throughout the business community. Although several theories explain variation in the diffusion of managerial practices (Abrahamson, 1991;O'Neill, Pouder, & Buchholtz, 1998;Rogers, 1995), critics argue that these explanations often emphasize realist concerns at the expense of linguistic considerations (Hirsch, 1986;Strang & Meyer, 1994). Therefore, in this article I use neoinstitutional theory, because it emphasizes the role of language or discourse in the diffusion process (Strang & Meyer, 1994).Proponents of the neoinstitutional perspective view the spread of managerial practices as a salient organizational act that must make sense to decision makers and must satisfy the institutional environment (Scott, 1995;Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). Managerial practices are accompanied by legitimating managerial discourse, which explains how practices help managers rationally pursue valued goals (Friedland & Alford, 1991;Strang & Meyer, 1994). For example, the management fashion variant of neoinstitutionalism (Abrahamson, 1996;Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999;Kieser, 1997) describes how managers use discourse to communicate to organizational stakeholders that the adoption of a given practice complies with norms of rationality and norms of progress (Abrahamson, 1996;Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999). Thus, discourse shapes decisions about the adoption and wider diffusion of managerial practices (Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999;Strang & Meyer, 1994).Although neoinstitutional theory includes a role for discourse, two key problems remain. First, it suggests a model of diffusion that is inherently adaptivist (Hasselbladh & Kallinikos, 2000). It shifts rational adaptation from the need to acquire resources in the technoeconomic environment to the need to conform normatively to the social environment (Hasselbladh & Kallinikos, 2000;Hasselbladh & Theodoridis, 1997), and it fails to explain why those needs exist or become influential or why a particular structure fulfills the need in question (Perrow, 1993). Second, neoinstitutional theory focuses on how institutions constrain actors at the expense of explaining how actors create institutions (Barley & Tolbert, 1997;Zucker, 1987). Culture and...