Implementing human resource development best practices: Replication or re-creation?

Family business best practices: Where from and where to?

“…Davies and Kochhar (2000) also argued that practices needed to be assessed for their contribution to performance outcomes, that relationships (causal or otherwise) between practices and measures of performance needed to be validated, and that a conceptual framework needed to be developed to indicate how best practices could be selected and implemented to maximize performance improvement. Lervik, Hennestad, Amdam, Lunnan, and Nilsen (2005) remarked that the prevalence of best practices appeared to be grounded in a mechanistic perspective on development in organisations and the real challenge was the concrete implementation of any practice, the process of unpacking. Similarly, Timbrell, Andrews, and Gable (2001) pointed out that effective knowledge transfer did not only require its transmission, but also its absorption and use; these were dependent on the transferee combining it and integrating it with existing capabilities.…”

Putting Strategy into Action – The Role of Artefacts for Business Format Replication

“…This also refers to the perceived ambiguity of units in how to implement and integrate these activities into a meaningful whole (Lippmann and Rumelt, 1982;Ambrosini and Bowman, 2005). Moreover, this ambiguity might be aggravated as handbooks, manuals and process descriptions are only abstractions of routines and are not only interpreted within different contexts and situations, but also need to be contextualized to specific regional implementations (Lervik et al, 2005;Reynaud, 2005). Contextualisation brings with it a multitude of challenges for replication as regional adaptations can have far reaching consequences on the replication of the business format (Szulanski and Jensen, 2008).…”

Establishing the art of contextualizing management ideas and panaceas as a research field

“…second, there is a research tradition that sometimes comes under the notion of the 'translation perspective' and is based on the theory of sociology of translation (see, for example, callon 1986; Latour 1986Latour , 1987 as well as on the works that brought this theory into the studies of the spread of management ideas and panaceas (czarniawska and Joerges 1996;czarniawska and sevón 1996). such studies have a descriptive approach and follow the spread of management ideas/panaceas in time and space and study how their meanings (often) change as they are being interpreted and reinterpreted by various actors (for example, doorewaard and van bijsterveld 2001; frenkel 2005; Lervik et al 2005;boxenbaum 2006;Morris and Lancaster 2006;stensaker 2007;Risberg and søderberg 2008;Heiskanen et al 2009; Waeraas and sataøen 2014; see also eccles and nohria 1992; fiss et al 2012, even if they do not explicitly use the translation perspective). the majority of this kind of study has focused on organizational actors' translation, but occasionally scholars have studied researchers' translation of management ideas and panaceas (bartunek and spreitzer 2006; Örtenblad 2007).…”