International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol.

18, 311–332 (2016)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12094

Middle Managers and the Translation

of New Ideas in Organizations: A Review
of Micro-practices and Contingencies
Giovanni Radaelli and Lucy Sitton-Kent1
Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK, and 1 Nottingham University Business
School, University of Nottingham, Innovation Park, Triumph Road, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, UK
Corresponding author email: giovanni.radaelli@wbs.ac.uk

Translation theories argue that the transformation of new ideas is ‘in the hands of
people’ and that actors at multiple organizational levels interact to affect this pro-
cess. However, previous research has focused mostly on executive managers or R&D
departments, while other organizational actors, who have a comparable influence on
the translation process, have received little systematic analysis of their role. This study
draws upon this premise to review the existing literature on middle managers’ engage-
ment with the translation of new ideas. The findings follow middle managers throughout
the translation process, i.e. from the acquisition of the new ideas to its stabilization. The
authors identify the micro-practices pursued by middle managers to affect the travel
of the new idea within the organization, and the contingencies that explain when and
how middle managers engage in specific translation stages. The paper concludes with
discussions of the main implications and indications for middle managers and future
directions for research.

Introduction tion, where ideas are conceived as fluid entities that

Organizations invest attention and resources in the
systematic acquisition, assimilation and exploitation
of new ideas in order to develop practices or prod-
ucts that engender competitive advantages, adapta-
tion to dynamic environments and responsiveness to
customers’ demands (Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler
2009; O’Reilly and Tushman 2008; Volberda et al.
2010). With the increasing relevance of this topic in
management research, several studies have refined the
theory about what organizations do to ‘acquire, as-
similate and exploit’ new ideas, moving from linear
models of diffusion to non-linear models of transla-
Giovanni Radaelli is supported by the National Institute for
Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Ap-
plied Health Research and Care West Midlands. This paper
presents independent research, and the views expressed are
those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS,
the NIHR or the Department of Health.
change when moving from ‘here to there’, because
of a complex web of activities in the organization
(Ansari et al. 2010; Czarniawska and Sevon 1996;
Doorewaard and van Bijsterveld 2001; Sturdy 2004).
Different translation theories all agree that research
should investigate the dynamic interaction of translat-
ing actors, translation processes and translated ideas
(Czarniawska and Sevon 1996; Latour 1987). Em-
pirical studies, however, have usually focused on the
translated ideas, seeking to explain how properties
and applications of a given idea (e.g. Total Quality
Management, Activity Based Costing) change across
different organizations, and differ from its original
form (Jones and Dugdale 2002; Westphal et al. 1997);
and on the translation process, seeking to explain
‘what happens’ during the translation of new ideas
within the organization and what activities produce
specific outcomes (Doorewaard and van Bijsterveld
2001).


C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington
Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
312
Studies that focus on the role of translating actors
are fewer and lack cumulative impact. Past research
emphasized that actors play a central role in trans-
lation theory, because ‘the spread in time and space
of anything – claims, orders, artefacts, goods – is in
the hands of people’ (Johnson and Hagström 2005,
p. 371). Only a few studies, however, have moved
from local and context-specific descriptions of indi-
vidual behaviours to theories on the role that spe-
cific cadres of actors have during the translation of
ideas. Furthermore, these few studies have almost
exclusively focused upon R&D departments or ex-
ecutive managers (Lane et al. 2006; Volberda et al.
2010), while other actors (e.g. frontline employees,
middle managers (MMs), management consultants),
who may have significant influence on the transla-
tion process, have not been subject to any systematic
analysis of their role.
Our review addresses this research gap, providing
a translation-based analysis of the literature on MMs’
agency in organizations. Several studies describe
MMs involved in the travel of new ideas, e.g. acquir-
ing external knowledge, resisting or implementing
initiatives from executive managers, or championing
new practices from the frontline (Rouleau and
Balogun 2011; Wooldridge et al. 2008). While MMs’
presence in the travel of new ideas is acknowledged,
there have been few systematic attempts to inves-
tigate their activity explicitly from the perspective
of translation theory (e.g. Teulier and Rouleau
2013). Our study thus seeks to provide two main
contributions.
First, we reconstruct the activities and tactics un-
dertaken by MMs during the translation of new ideas.
Our review interprets the evidence produced in differ-
ent research fields (e.g. organizational development,
innovation, strategy-as-practice) according to exist-
ing translation frameworks (e.g. Czarniawska and
Sevon 1996; Doorewaard and van Bijsterveld 2001).
Thus, we identify relevant micro-practices and themes
that describe how the translation of new ideas is un-
dertaken by MMs in an organization.
Second, we reconstruct the contingencies that af-
fect MMs’ involvement in the translation process.
Middle managers are often reluctant to depart from
their ancillary role to avoid interpersonal risks with
executive management and frontline staff (Harding
et al. 2014; Wooldridge et al. 2008). Therefore, it is
important to highlight individual, organizational and
social factors that make MMs more willing to engage
with the translation of new ideas; and more effective
in influencing this process.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
G. Radaelli and L. Sitton-Kent
Methodology
Definition of middle managers
Harding et al. (2014, p. 1214) define middle man-
agement as ‘a position in organisational hierarchies
between the operating core and the apex whose oc-
cupants are responsible for a particular business unit
at this intermediate level of the corporate hierarchy
that comprises all those below the top level strategic
management and above first-level supervision’. They
argue that ‘there is a consensus in definition’ (Dopson
and Stewart 1990; Floyd and Lane 2000; Mintzberg
1989; Wooldridge et al. 2008). This definition uses
the reference system of an organization, rather than a
system/network of organizations. As such, while hos-
pital CEOs might be MMs within the overall structure
of the NHS, they are treated as top managers in our
study. The intermediate position represents a defining
feature of MMs, because it triggers one property that
separates them from others, i.e. they are ‘at once con-
troller, controlled, resister and resisted’ (Harding et al.
2014, p. 1231), whereas top managers are controllers
and resisted, and employees and first-line supervisors
are resisters and controlled. Providing this definition,
Harding et al. (2014, p. 1214) also argued that ‘discus-
sions about the function of middle management lack
such agreement’. Indeed, studies displayed very di-
verse interpretations of MMs’ functions, e.g. MMs as
primarily responsible for communicating information
and executing strategies (e.g. Glaser et al. 2015) or
influential strategizers (e.g. Wooldridge et al. 2008).
This debate, however, does not challenge the predom-
inant definition, so it did not affect our review.
The proposed definition implies that a rather di-
verse cadre of actors can be labelled as MMs. In par-
ticular, studies are increasingly talking about ‘hybrid’
MMs, i.e. actors such as clinical directors, nurse man-
agers or ward managers (Burgess and Currie 2013;
Reay et al. 2006), who might not consider themselves
MMs, but occupy an intermediate position and sub-
stitute the functions of generalist MMs. We included
these figures in our review because they represent one
of the most significant advancements in MM-related
research, and will account for their professional back-
ground as a contingency for MMs’ translation agency.
Definition of translation
We define ‘translation’ as the effort to embed in a
given work context (e.g. in an organization, team or
unit) ideas that have been originated elsewhere. This
interpretation is shared by otherwise very different
Middle Managers and New Ideas
schools of thought (e.g. Boxenbaum and Strandgaard
Pedersen 2009; Callon 1986; Czarniawska and
Sevon 1996; Doorewaard and van Bijsterveld 2001;
Orlikowski 2000; Zilber 2006). Translation has been
conceived as a travel of ideas from one context to an-
other (Czarniawska and Joerges 1996), which implies
that ideas are acquired and transformed to fit within
a new context, and the context is also transformed
to fit with the new idea. Translation takes multiple
forms for MMs, such as carrying new ideas from out-
side to inside the organization (e.g. acquiring a new
technology), from top-management to frontline (e.g.
implementing a new strategy) or to peer MMs (e.g.
adapting to restructuring), from frontline to top man-
agement (e.g. disseminating grassroots innovations),
and from MMs upward, laterally or downwards (e.g.
championing alternatives). Even if these instances are
only rarely defined as ‘translation’, they are included
in our review, because they share core properties of
translation: MMs appropriate new ideas, embed them
in a new context, and attempt to stabilize them into
practices, roles or products/services.
We adopt an inclusive definition of ‘new idea’, i.e.
knowledge, practices, strategies, roles and technolo-
gies that are ‘new’ to the context of translation, and
that are translated because they carry the potential
for significant changes in established routines, prac-
tices and products/services. Examples in our review
are the ‘translation’ of balanced scorecards in perfor-
mance management tools (Jakobsen and Lueg 2014),
top-down plans to restructure a unit (Rouleau and
Balogun 2011), and bottom-up gender-equality plans
(Dutton and Ashford 1993).
Literature search
Following these definitions, our review collected stud-
ies that described the actions performed by MMs dur-
ing the ‘translation’ of ‘new ideas’ in organizations,
and the contingencies explaining when MMs engage
in specific stages of translation.
Our review includes empirical and conceptual stud-
ies published in peer-reviewed journals (to control
for overall study quality), considering in-scope any
study that reported MMs’ active role in moving an
idea inside the organization (e.g. instances of im-
plementation, issue selling, diffusion, corporate en-
trepreneurship). In particular, we selected studies that
included at least one activity performed by MMs
that is relevant for the translation of a new idea; or
one factor affecting MMs’ intention or effectiveness
to engage with translation activities. We considered

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
313
out-of-scope: studies of organizational translation
where MMs’ agency was not explicitly spelled out
(e.g. Christiansen and Thrane 2014; Wæraas and
Sataøen 2014); studies that focused on MMs, but not
on the travel of ideas (e.g. Ford and Collinson 2011
focusing on work–life balance); experimental studies
using students in the guise of managers (e.g. Sapulete
et al. 2014) and publications in languages other than
English.
We performed four steps. First, we looked for stud-
ies explicitly embedded in translation theories. Draw-
ing from Creed et al. (2002) and Czarniawska and
Sevon (1996), we identified four research streams:
i.e. Scandinavian Institutionalism, Actor–Network
Theory, Framing Theory, and the more traditional
literatures on adoption/diffusion. Each stream of
research has seminal or central publications: Czar-
niawska and Sevon (1996) for Scandinavian theory;
Latour (1987) for Actor Network Theory; Benford
and Snow (2000) and Cornelissen and Werner (2014)
for Framing Theory; Rogers (2010) for Diffusion
Theory. Using the EBSCOHost database, we checked
studies on MMs referencing these works and identi-
fied eight relevant studies (Boxenbaum and Battilana
2005; Chua 1995; Ciuk and James 2014; Kaplan
2008; Mennicken 2008; Morris and Lancaster 2006;
Reay et al. 2013; Teulier and Rouleau 2013).
Second, we looked for studies explicitly embedded
in the ‘middle management perspective’ conceptual-
ized by Floyd and Wooldridge (1992) and Wooldridge
et al. (2008). This represented the most fertile area for
review. Using the EBSCOHost database, we checked
studies referenced in, and referencing, these works.
We identified 72 additional relevant studies.
Third, we performed an issue-by-issue review
of relevant journals for translation and middle
management studies. Earlier research advised relying
on top-tier journals for cost-effective understanding
of research trends (Foss et al. 2010; Kirkman et al.
2006; Vaara and Whittington 2012). We adopted their
journal lists, and added recurrent outlets identified
in the previous stages. We then reviewed the 2005–
2015 issues of: Academy of Management Journal;
Academy of Management Review; Administrative
Science Quarterly; Human Relations; Human Re-
source Management; Human Resource Management
Journal; Journal of Management; Journal of Man-
agement Studies; Journal of Product Innovation Man-
agement; Leadership Quarterly; Management Learn-
ing; Management Science; Organization Science;
Organization Studies; Scandinavian Journal of
Management; Strategic Management Journal; and
314
Strategic Organization. We scanned manuscripts
according to title and abstract, read the full text and
identified 15 additional studies that are placed ‘out-
side’ explicit translation or MM-related frameworks.
Fourth, we performed a keyword-based search in
the EBSCOhost database, using the following key-
words: [‘middle manager’ OR ‘middle management’
OR ‘line manager’] AND [translation OR imple-
mentation OR strategy OR change]) in title, abstract
and/or keywords; and checked references in selected
studies, adding 20 studies.
We thus identified 116 relevant studies, all reported
in the bibliography.
Analysis of studies
We initially separated quotes/extracts related to MMs’
translation activities from others related to contin-
gencies. In the first regard, we engaged in a three-
step thematic synthesis of extant research to identify
relevant translation ‘micro-practices’ (Hoon 2013;
Thomas and Harden 2008) and classified them ac-
cording to theoretical dimensions of translation re-
search. We adopted the term ‘micro-practice’ from
Rouleau (2005) to indicate individual activities that
have been abstracted from their specific context/time
of application. For instance, Rouleau (2005) de-
scribed activities such as ‘describing the world of
clothing as being closed’, ‘qualifying the world of
clothing as macho’, ‘using woman-to-woman tones’
or ‘pre-testing collection with French-speaking bou-
tique owners’ (p. 1427). These are context-specific
activities that the authors elaborated into one, more
theoretically abstract, micro-practice – ‘overcoding
the strategy’. We followed a similar approach for our
first-order coding. In each study, we identified extracts
of MMs’ translation agency and abstracted them into
‘micro-practices’. For instance, Hoon’s (2007) extract
of MMs accessing plans from the German Ministry
of Science was rendered into ‘access knowledge from
strategic inputs and plans’ to reflect a more general-
izable action.
Later, we aggregated ‘micro-practices’ according
to their common purpose. For instance, ‘reading the
wind from top managers’, ‘elaborate symbolic and
verbal representations from actors’ and ‘elaborate
knowledge on the socio-cultural system’ shared the
purpose of making sense of the surrounding context
and were thus aggregated into a common second-
order theme.
Finally, we classified our induced themes in
theoretical dimensions available from translation

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
G. Radaelli and L. Sitton-Kent
frameworks. We adopted an eclectic approach, i.e. we
incorporated dimensions from different frameworks,
according to their fit with the identified micro-
practices and themes. So, we adopted Doorewaard
and van Bijsterveld’s (2001) dimensions of enrolment
(aggregating themes: ‘identifying/connecting actors
in durable coalitions’, ‘staging the involvement’
and ‘developing conversation about involvement’)
and alignment (aggregating themes: ‘selling own
version’, ‘mediating other versions’, ‘aligning goals
and agendas’ and ‘aligning meanings and interpre-
tations’). However, we considered the concept of
‘idea stabilization’ (Gherardi and Perrotta 2011;
Orlikowski 2000) to fit our findings more than
Doorewaard and van Bijsterveld’s (2001) dimension
of congealment. Similarly, we adopted the dimen-
sions of appropriation (Phillips et al. 2008) as well as
legitimization and idea acquisition (Cornelissen et al.
2011; Czarniawska and Joerges 1996) to represent the
early stages of the translation process. In developing
our eclectic framework, we also identified theoretical
dimensions that are relevant for MMs’ translation
agency, but have not been considered in previous
research. For instance, translation theories describe
the dimension of idea variation (Czarniawska and
Joerges 1996), but empirical research does not de-
scribe any relevant MMs’ ‘micro-practice’. Figures
1 and 2 synthesize the findings for micro-practices.
Regarding MMs’ contingencies, we engaged in a
similar thematic synthesis. In each study, we identi-
fied key extracts and pinned down a ‘first-order code’
representing the input variable (e.g. ‘discretion in
strategy-making’, ‘process control’, ‘organizational
cues’), the outcome (e.g. ‘likelihood of MMs’ issue
selling’ or ‘championing alternatives’) and the sign
of the relationship indicated by the reviewed study.
We then aggregated first-order codes in second-order
relationships once inputs shared a common purpose
(e.g. the examples represented ‘top managers’ attempt
to provide contextual cues’) and the outcomes related
to a common translation dimension (e.g. the examples
related to the dimension of ‘appropriation of transla-
tion role’). Figure 3 provides an overview of the find-
ings for contingencies. For the sake of conciseness,
we did not report all first-order codes, but only the
aggregated codes.
Findings
A significant number of studies have described MMs
affecting the travel of ideas in their organization. Only
Middle Managers and New Ideas 315

Figure 1. Micro-practices of acquisition, appropriation and legitimization

a few studies, however, formally adopted a translation Idea acquisition

framework (e.g. Kaplan 2008). Instead, most insights
Exploiting their intermediate position, MMs access
come from studies situated in strategy (e.g. Rouleau
ideas from a wide pool of knowledge, and work to
2005), entrepreneurship (e.g. Kuratko and Goldsby
differentiate and integrate diverse types of knowl-
2004) and sociology of professions (e.g. Burgess and
edge: operational knowledge collected from super-
Currie 2013). Our effort was then to connect this dis-
visors and employees; strategic and tactical inputs
persed knowledge within a translation-based frame-
from top management; market inputs from clients;
work composed of seven theoretical dimensions: idea
best practices from other organizations and evi-
acquisition; appropriation of translation role; legit-
dence from reports; scientific databases; guidelines
imization of appropriated role; enrolment of actors
(Balogun et al. 2005; Burgess and Currie 2013; Currie
in translation network; idea variation; alignment of
and Procter 2005; Hoon 2007; Janczak 2004; McDer-
actors toward shared translation; and stabilization of
mott et al. 2013; Regnér 2003). Simultaneously, MMs
translated solutions. These dimensions include micro-
differentiate and prioritise diverse sources of knowl-
practices that might overlap in practice, but are con-
edge, using particularly the upwards connections with
ceptually distinct.


C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
316
Figure 2. Micro-practices of enrolment, alignment and stabilization
executive managers (Dutton et al. 1997 2002; Man-
tere 2008; Ogbonna and Wilkinson 2003; Raes et al.
2011), less frequently those with supervisors and em-
ployees (Floyd and Lane 2000; Jones 2005, 2006) and
even less frequently lateral links with peers (Balogun
and Johnson 2004; Bartlett and Ghoshal 1993), owing
to problems of turf protection (Balogun and Johnson

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
G. Radaelli and L. Sitton-Kent
2005; Hornsby et al. 2002). Finally, MMs differen-
tiate and exploit diverse typologies of enquiry to ac-
cess knowledge, ranging from ‘explorative inquiry
regarding the strategic issues’ to ‘experiments and
procedural methods’ regarding operational knowl-
edge (Regnér 2003, p. 67); from formal and extended
occasions such as meetings, workshops or seminars
Middle Managers and New Ideas
Figure 3. Contingencies to appropriation and alignment micro-practices
(e.g. Burgess and Currie 2013; Currie et al. 2015;
Hoon 2007; Tippmann et al. 2014) to informal chats,
gossiping and rumours with peers (Balogun and John-
son 2004), or brief contacts with top management
(Raes et al. 2011).
There is no available theory to explain how MMs
assimilate and organize these inputs. Similarly, pre-
vious research shows that MMs exploit multiple oc-
casions to negotiate knowledge with other actors, but
provides no indication about any privileged form of
knowledge or enquiry.
Appropriation of translation role
Appropriation refers to a process in which actors em-
bed the role of ‘translator of new ideas’ as part of their
identity (Phillips et al. 2008). At this stage, MMs
decide whether they support or resist the new idea,
how much effort they will devote and how explicitly
they will manifest their involvement to others.
Previous research shows three themes. First, MMs
make sense of the new idea and of its impacts on
them and on the organization. Middle managers cali-
brate their position according to their attitude toward

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
317
the idea (Balogun and Johnson 2004; Behrens et al.
2014; Conway and Monks 2011; Fenton-O’Creevy
2001; Huy 2002; Ren and Guo 2011; Sillince and
Mueller 2007) and develop judgments about its con-
trollability and fit with personal values and interests
(Ciuk and James 2014; Jakobsen and Lueg 2014;
Raaijmaker et al. 2015). Fairhurst et al. (2002) and
Zoller and Fairhurst (2007) described how workforce
restructuring managers interpreted their downsizing
task rationally (e.g. assessing the likely consequences
of change) and emotionally (e.g. projecting the feel-
ings of workers) – and ultimately worked to change
the plan radically.
Second, MMs make sense of the context in which
translations would take place. Middle managers
use their intermediate position to collect signals
from the organization and plan their involvement
accordingly. Most studies emphasized MMs ‘read-
ing the wind’ from top managers to decide how
to engage with translation (Ashford et al. 1998;
Dutton and Ashford 1993; Dutton et al. 2001, 2002;
Hoon 2007; Mantere 2008; Raes et al. 2011). For
example, in Dutton et al. (1997), MMs assessed
the possibility to interact with top managers and
318
the supportiveness of organizational culture before
deciding to promote a new idea. In Mantere (2008),
MMs shaped their strategic involvement according to
their perception of top managers’ expectations, e.g.
whether they allocated appropriate resources, showed
trust, respect, responsiveness or inclusion. Rouleau
and Balogun (2011) broadened the attention beyond
top managers, referring to ‘drawing on context’,
i.e. elaborate symbolic and verbal representations
collected from any organizational actor (e.g. making
sense of context-specific language, metaphors,
presentations, reports) and elaborate knowledge on
the socio-cultural system (e.g. knowledge on others’
identities, interests, and rules of engagement).
Third, MMs build their translation identity deter-
mining their involvement with the new idea. This in-
volves a psychological process in which MMs make
sense of their personal inclinations and expecta-
tions, and a dialogical process in which MMs inter-
act with others to negotiate their engagement. Beech
(2000) observed MMs constructing discourses to af-
firm their identity as epic/heroic, romantic, tragic and
ironic actors – each leading to diverse forms of en-
gagement. Similarly, Harding et al. (2014) observed
MMs constructing discourses to affirm their identi-
ties as conformist/managerialist (who comply with
instructions), critical/managerialist (who agree with
the strategy, but disagree with its implementation) or
critical/resistant (who voice opposition). This stage
is continuous for MMs, who are in constant search
of cues to adjust their identity (Allard-Poesi 2015;
Balogun and Johnson 2004; Hay 2014; Mantere 2008;
Thomas and Linstead 2002). In Huy et al. (2014),
for instance, MMs processed cues from top man-
agers, moving from a positive/neutral emotional sta-
tus, which drove them actively to formulate change
projects, to a negative status, which triggered overt
disobedience.
Contingencies to appropriation. Middle managers
often refuse to move beyond their ancillary roles;
hence, several studies paid extensive attention to fac-
tors that shape their willingness to appropriate a trans-
lation role.
Several studies emphasized the importance of
MMs’ goal structure, i.e. MMs get involved ‘when
their perceptions of goal-related cause/effect rela-
tions are highly congruent’ (Guth and MacMillan
1986, p. 313). Hence, MMs assess the consistency
of news ideas with their identity/interests (Behrens
et al. 2014; Burgess and Currie 2013; Conway and
Monks 2011; Crossan and Berdrow 2003; Dutton

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
G. Radaelli and L. Sitton-Kent
et al. 1997; Fenton-O’Creevy 2001; Huy 2001, 2002,
2011; Yip et al. 2001) and disengage from them when
they perceive low probability of success (Dutton et al.
2002; Guth and MacMillan 1986), ‘risk of image
loss’ and political vulnerability (Ashford et al. 1998;
Dutton et al. 1997, 2002; Fenton-O’Creevy 2001),
fear of sanction (Ogbonna and Wilkinson 2003; Con-
way and Monks 2011) and fear of losing skill and
technique (Llewellyn 2001). Moving beyond self-
interest, MMs with greater emotional intelligence and
organizational citizenship behaviours are more likely
to shape their role according to peers’, employees’
and managers’ interests (Gong et al. 2010; Huy 2011;
Sharma and Good 2013; Sillince and Mueller 2007;
Zoller and Fairhurst 2007).
The MM’s personality is also relevant. Some
individuals are inherently ‘champions’ of change
(Howell and Boies 2004) or ‘corporate entrepreneurs’
(Kuratko and Goldsby 2004; Kuratko et al. 2005),
while others display ‘radical cynicism’ (Bartlett
and Ghoshal 1993; Ogbonna and Wilkinson 2003).
Similarly, Beech (2000) and Harding et al. (2014)
highlighted different identities (e.g. epic/heroic, con-
formist/critical identities, managerialist/resistant),
which affect how they position themselves during
change.
Workload considerations engender resistant be-
haviours or detachment from translation. Demanding
work schedules leave little time for innovation and
experiment, while change is viewed as additional bur-
den (Balogun 2003; Conway and Monks 2011; Currie
1999; Currie and Procter 2005; Hornsby et al. 2002;
McCann et al. 2008). More recently, studies suggest
a curvilinear relationship, arguing that cognitive de-
manding situations and flexible role orientations stim-
ulate MMs to go beyond ancillary tasks (Howell and
Boies 2004; McCann et al. 2008; Nielsen and Cleal
2011; Tippmann et al. 2014).
Even more research emphasizes the importance of
MMs’ network position in the organization (Ahearne
et al. 2014; Bartlett and Ghoshal 1993; Battilana
2006, 2011; Battilana and Casciaro 2012; Boxenbaum
and Battilana 2005; Gargiulo and Benassi 2000; Pap-
pas and Wooldridge 2007; Ren and Guo 2011; Ro-
dan and Galunic 2004; Shi et al. 2009). While the
lynchpin position is by itself valuable, studies high-
light that some MMs are better positioned than oth-
ers. Middle managers connected through strong ties
are more likely to perceive others’ social influence
and comply with external requests to fulfil expecta-
tions of reciprocity and minimize risks (e.g. Burgess
et al. 2015; Ren and Guo 2011). Middle managers in
Middle Managers and New Ideas
boundary-spanning positions, instead, have higher
levels of divergent strategic activity and are more
likely to notice and appropriate exploratory initiatives
(Boxenbaum and Battilana 2005; Dutton et al. 1997;
Pappas and Wooldridge 2007; Raman 2009; Ren and
Guo 2011).
Top managers’ influence represents the single most
reported contingency for the appropriation of trans-
lation roles by MMs. We identified four distinct
themes. First, MMs are more likely to engage with
translation when top managers attribute them such
role/identity, especially through a systematic involve-
ment in strategic decision-making, which signals that
MMs are expected to produce new ideas (Ahearne
et al. 2014; Barton and Ambrosini 2013; Conway and
Monks 2011; Fenton-O’Creevy 2001; Hornsby et al.
2002; Jones 2006; Mantere 2008; Raman 2009; West-
ley 1990). Second, MMs are more likely to engage
with translation when top managers provide social
cues about the expected boundaries of their actions
(Balogun and Johnson 2004; Bartlett and Ghoshal
1993; Barton and Ambrosini 2013; Burgess et al.
2015; Currie and Procter 2005; Dutton et al. 1997;
Mantere 2005 2008; Taylor and Helfat 2009). In
Mantere (2005), top managers in particular shaped
MMs’ engagement through ‘formation practices’ (i.e.
interactive discussions about the content of strategy);
‘organizing practices’ (about what MMs’ activities
are legitimate according to the strategy) and ‘control
practices’ (about the distribution of resources). Other
studies note, however, that cues could reduce MMs’
discretion and engender conformity, so curvilinear
relationships are suggested (Currie and Brown 2003;
Currie and Procter 2001, 2005; Jones 2006; Kuratko
and Goldsby 2004; Marginson 2002; Nielsen and
Cleal 2011; Ogbonna and Wilkinson 2003; Thomas
and Ambrosini 2015). Third, MMs are more likely
to appropriate a translation role when top managers
provide an appropriate context: e.g. dedicating eco-
nomic, human and organizational resources; remov-
ing practical barriers; facilitating socialization; reduc-
ing culture of blame; managing workload; providing
education and training; developing moral paradigms
(Burgess and Currie 2013; Dutton et al. 1997; Fenton-
O’Creevy 2001; Hoon 2007; Huy 2002; Kuratko and
Goldsby 2004; Jones 2005, 2006; Mantere 2008; Ren
and Guo 2011; Westley 1990). Ren and Guo (2011)
particularly suggest a curvilinear relationship be-
tween resources and engagement, since ‘too many’ re-
sources could foster complacency. Fourth, the quality
of the middle–top management relationship is crucial.
Middle managers are more likely to engage when they
perceive procedural justice (Barton and Ambrosini

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
319
2013), closeness and open-mindedness (Dutton and
Ashford 1993; Ling et al. 2005), respect and trust,
responsiveness and refereeing to new ideas (Mantere
2008) and emotional support (Huy 2011).
Nevertheless, studies also show that MMs adapt to
minimal or no contact with top managers and still
pursue radical translations (Hoon 2007; Raes et al.
2011). In Balogun and Johnson (2004, p. 523), MMs
act ‘in the absence of senior management’, using lat-
eral interactions with peer MMs to interpret the over-
arching change and put forward changes that could
ameliorate their local position. It follows that sup-
port from employees, supervisors and peers is also
relevant. This topic is, however, under-investigated,
with studies having at best observed: (i) the negative
effects of peers’ turf protection (Balogun and John-
son 2004, 2005; Hornsby et al. 2002; Kuratko and
Goldsby 2004); (ii) MMs’ lack of lateral sensemaking
(Balogun and Johnson 2004, 2005; Currie and Proc-
ter 2005; Westley 1990); (iii) MMs’ use of front-line
managers’ personal networks (Bartlett and Ghoshal
1993; Raman 2009; Yang et al. 2010); (iv) the in-
hibiting effects of expert/professional employees’ re-
sistance (Currie 2006; Currie et al. 2012; Llewellyn
2001; Sims 2003; Suominen and Mantere 2010;
Waring and Bishop 2010).
Legitimization of appropriated role
Legitimization represents MMs’ effort to gain oth-
ers’ acceptance of their involvement in translation.
Middle managers cannot fully rely on hierarchical
position, resource control or expert knowledge to le-
gitimize their involvement, so they rely on four other
mechanisms.
First, MMs exploit their embeddedness, partic-
ularly their pre-existing ties in the organization
(Balogun et al. 2005; Dutton and Ashford 1993; Jones
2006; Kellogg 2009; Rouleau and Balogun 2011).
Balogun et al. (2005) show MMs managing up, i.e.
‘getting support of more senior managers for intended
interventions/courses of action [and] developing ini-
tiatives that tie in with/support the interests of more
senior managers’ (Balogun et al. 2005, p. 267). Mid-
dle managers’ embeddedness and experience pro-
vide them with information that they can implant in
executive managers and employees (Hope 2010; Reay
et al. 2006). No study described MMs exploiting em-
ployees’ ties, except for some detail about gaining
support from clients (Rouleau 2005), media (Reay
et al. 2006) or consultants (Regnér 2003).
Second, MMs exploit their ancillary role to build
others’ trust (Bartlett and Ghoshal 1993; Chua 1995;
320 G. Radaelli and L. Sitton-Kent

Jones 2006; Reay et al. 2006; Rouleau and Balogun change with others (Wooldridge et al. 2008). We rec-
2011; Sillince and Mueller 2007). Middle managers ognized three arguments in the literature.
are never shown to perform ‘grand gestures’ to gain
Identify and connect allies in durable coalitions.
others’ trust, but rather perform clerical work to stay
Middle managers use their position and embed-
close to top managers and employees (e.g. Huy 2011;
dedness to select the most convenient actors in
Raes et al. 2011) exploit ‘a range of simple, everyday
durable coalitions, attempting to ‘hand-pick’ (Hope
decision rules [that involves fixing] fixable problems’
2010) ‘like-minded allies’ (Waring and Bishop
(Chua 1995; p. 133) to gain consensus.
2010). Middle managers usually involve allies at
Third, MMs frame their role as claims-makers
any organizational level to gain complementary as-
(Chua 1995; Huy 2002; Kaplan 2008; Llewellyn
sets: hierarchical legitimization and resources from
2001; Rouleau and Balogun 2011; Sillince and
top management (Jones 2006; Rouleau 2005); ex-
Mueller 2007; Suominen and Mantere 2010; Waring
pert/operational knowledge from employees and con-
and Bishop 2010). Sillince and Mueller (2007) theo-
sultants (Currie and Procter 2005; Llewellyn 2001);
rized a combination of talking-up and talking-down.
functional/divisional knowledge and political support
Middle managers use talking-up discourses to claim
from peers (Balogun and Johnson 2004) and clerical
more authority and individual responsibility during
support from junior staff (Jones 2006). Middle man-
change, emphasizing their leadership credential dur-
agers also involve neutral stakeholders to create a
ing change (Waring and Bishop 2010) and rational-
‘cushion’ between their coalition and its antagonists
izing their expertise as spokespeople (Kaplan 2008;
(Reay et al. 2013; Teulier and Rouleau 2013).
Rouleau and Balogun 2011). Middle managers use
Studies do not describe MMs’ tactics to iden-
talking-down discourses to manage accountability,
tify actors or differentiate their enrolment, but re-
spread blame, set convenient targets and indefinite
veal how MMs connect with them. Middle man-
deadlines in order to reduce interpersonal and orga-
agers rely heavily on meetings to develop shared and
nizational risks.
symbolic spaces (Balogun and Johnson 2005; Hoon
Finally, MMs delegitimize opponents as claims-
2007; Jones 2006; Reay et al. 2006; Rouleau 2005;
makers (Kaplan 2008; Kellogg 2009; Llewellyn 2001;
Rouleau and Balogun 2011). Middle managers tac-
Sillince and Mueller 2007). Llewellyn (2001, p. 605)
tically engage in these meetings with allies only to
reported how MMs conveyed messages that ‘[other]
develop internal strategies; and with opponents to ne-
managers cannot be trusted to manage health care [be-
gotiate goals and values of the translation (Kellogg
cause of their] lack of understanding of medical prac-
2009). Middle managers usually work in teams and
tice, along with their disregard for patients, makes
empower its members by attributing ad hoc identi-
their decisions suspect . . . ’ . Similarly, in Kellogg
ties, responsibilities or rewards (Burgess and Currie
(2009, p. 681), MMs ‘developed oppositional iden-
2013; Huy 2002; Jones 2005, 2006; Nonaka 1988;
tity by drawing boundaries between us and them and
Reay et al. 2006, 2013; Sillince and Mueller 2007).
by defining [opponents] as adversaries who needed to
Similarly, MMs carefully locate allies in key po-
be challenged’, e.g. they ‘constructed themselves as
sitions so that they can monitor other parties and
not old school’ (Kellogg 2009, p. 682). When MMs
control information-gathering processes (Hope 2010;
cannot afford open opposition, they rely on ‘playful
Kellogg 2009). Finally, MMs use pre-arrangements
tactics’ (Suominen and Mantere 2010), e.g. advanc-
and preparatory initiatives to guarantee that the net-
ing comments and rumours that subtly work as local
work endures over time, e.g. for controlling com-
parodies of others’ roles and methods.
munication systems or providing training (Balogun
2003; Conway and Monks 2011; Jones 2005; Rouleau
Enrolment of actors in translation network 2005).
Enrolment represents the development and preser- Staging the involvement. Middle managers care-
vation of the network of actors pursuing the trans- fully prepare the ‘stage’ where translation occurs
lation. Enrolment is crucial because all translations (Balogun et al. 2005; Beatty and Lee 1992; Hoon
are social processes in which proponents/resisters of 2007; Rouleau 2005; Rouleau and Balogun 2011;
change involve others to embed their idea in practice Sharma and Good 2013; Teulier and Rouleau 2013;
(Czarniawska and Sevon 1996). Enrolment skills are Waring and Bishop 2010). Middle managers use
especially critical for MMs who lack power and re- meetings and contact points to position themselves
sources to act autonomously, and need to negotiate in the scene and set the rhetorical tone for following


C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Middle Managers and New Ideas
actions (Hoon 2007; Rouleau and Balogun 2011;
Waring and Bishop 2010), create the atmosphere
and ‘working environment for change’ (Beatty and
Lee 1992; Rouleau 2005) and balance emotions
(Huy 2002, 2011; Reay et al. 2006). In Huy (2002),
particularly, MMs enter deep inside subordinates’
organizational life to set the emotional tone of transla-
tion, exploiting their proximity to employees and their
knowledge of operations to lower ‘unpleasant/low-
activation feelings of disappointment and fatigue by
sharing these among themselves [and] blanking out
the larger threatening context’ (Huy 2002, p. 44).
Rouleau and Balogun (2011) provided the richest
theory about this micro-practice, showing how MMs
carefully prepare who to target, identify right media,
formats and forums for different stakeholder groups,
differentiate conversations for different stakeholder
groups and build conversations that can be used in
future and build personal image. The study reveals
how MMs can be influential mobilizing everyday for-
mats/forums and sustaining continuous contacts with
others. For example, a MM is here shown to use a sim-
ple deck of cards as ‘his principal management tool’ to
attract technicians into strategic conversations, while
another MM regularly visited their workspace to es-
tablish a personal connection with them.
Developing conversations about translation. Once
the stage is prepared, MMs enter conversations about
why the translation is needed ‘here and now’. Sev-
eral studies report failed implementation despite ear-
lier successes in establishing a network of allies,
because the latter gradually lost commitment, de-
veloped internal conflicts or kept hidden profiles
(Buchanan et al. 2005; Klein and Sorra 1996). Mid-
dle managers work to gain and maintain others’
commitment to translation using evidence (scientific
data, internal reports, guidelines) to increase credi-
bility to proposal and debunk the debunkers (Kaplan
2008; Kellogg 2009; McDermott et al. 2013), con-
necting the translation goals with employees’ every-
day concerns (Fauré and Rouleau 2011; Jones 2006;
Reay et al. 2006 2013; Waring and Bishop 2010)
or strategic concerns (Balogun et al. 2005; Batti-
lana et al. 2009) and using threatening scenarios
to emphasize the need to get involved (Fauré and
Rouleau 2011; Kaplan 2008; Kellogg 2009; Rothen-
berg 2007). Rouleau (2005) describe these efforts as
justifying the change, explaining how MMs gained
stakeholders’ commitment through rhetoric focused
on practical aspects, simplicity, appropriating client
discourses and relying on long-standing relations.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
321
In contrast, in Reay et al. (2013), MMs gain oth-
ers’ acceptance by highlighting non-financial incen-
tives (e.g. how the new idea would improve work);
and proselytizing though narratives that advocate for
change and encourage story-telling among stakehold-
ers, which would energize ‘everybody to keep work-
ing in that direction’.
Altogether, studies emphasize how MMs rely heav-
ily on rhetorical arguments to build the case for
change; and they do so by projecting into stakehold-
ers’ identity and interests to produce a congruent nar-
rative, minimizing the manifestation of their personal
interest in the translation and leveraging the strength
of mutual relationships to suggest a case for recip-
rocation. While studies suggest that these narratives
would maintain high levels of commitment over time
(Reay et al. 2013), no study suggests whether and
how MMs use tactics different from those when they
aim to maintain, rather than gain, commitment.
Idea variation
Idea variation is central to translation theories, which
ideas vary as they move within the organization be-
cause stakeholders adapt them to specific interests
and needs (Ansari et al. 2010; Czarniawska and
Sevon 1996). Røvik (1996) introduced four trans-
lation rules that represent how actors vary ideas,
i.e. copying, adding, omitting and altering its com-
ponents. While studies have applied these micro-
practices to organizations (Røvik 2011; Sahlin and
Wedlin 2008; Wæraas and Sataøen 2014), this detail
is missing for MMs’ translation. Indeed, MMs are ex-
pected to adapt ideas for organizational consumption,
and even to reinvent their core contents and purposes
(Fitzgerald et al. 2013; Floyd and Lane 2000; Jakob-
sen and Lueg 2014; McCabe 2011; Morris and Lan-
caster 2006). In particular, Ciuk and James (2014,
p. 7) report how apparently innocuous interlingual
translations could become a ‘cultural and political
process which opened up spaces for reflexivity and di-
alogue among those involved’ and MM-led coalitions
embedded local interests and values in the ‘source
text’. Only Rouleau (2005) describes some tactics re-
lated to translating the orientation, arguing that MMs
select relevant elements to give a positive image of
the new orientation; and use ‘middle-of-the-range
rhetorics’ and ‘evocative metaphors’. Noticeably, this
study focuses on a later stage, where ideas are al-
ready adapted to attract clients, while the early stages
of ‘idea building’ are limited to brief references to
building products ‘symbolically’ and ‘giving them’ a
soul.
322
Alignment of actors towards translated ideas
Alignment refers to the efforts made by MMs to reach
a shared course of action in the translation network.
Four themes emerged from the literature.
Selling their version. Middle managers engage in
extensive efforts to promote their own version of how
new ideas should be translated in the organization,
particularly embedding ‘neutral’ technical knowledge
in persuasive narratives that accentuate their point of
view (Balogun 2003; Currie 1999; Currie and Procter
2005; Dutton and Ashford 1993; Dutton et al. 1997;
Kaplan 2008; Ling et al. 2005; Raes et al. 2011; Reay
et al. 2006; Rothenberg 2007; Rouleau 2005; Rouleau
and Balogun 2011; Teulier and Rouleau 2013).
Dutton and Ashford (1993) and Ling et al. (2005)
argued that issue-selling tactics involve how to ‘pack-
age’ their version of the translation, what channels
to use when communicating with others, who to in-
volve and what level of formality to use with different
stakeholders. Previous research predominantly ad-
dressed the first element. Dutton and Ashford (1993)
described packaging as linguistic framing used by
MMs to get an idea incorporated within stakehold-
ers’ orientations and to convince them about the need
to follow a specific course of action. The study in-
vestigates MMs’ relationship with top managers and
argues that ‘success’ is more likely when the pack-
aging is succinct, it has top management interest and
responsibility, has a strategic frame and an emotional
appeal with supporting facts.
Rouleau (2005, p. 1426) described MMs’ effort as
overcoding the strategy, i.e. inscribing words and ac-
tions around ‘professional and socio-cultural codes
of the interlocutor’, e.g. differentiating their pack-
aging according to interlocutors’ cultural belong-
ing, professional background, gender (Burgess and
Currie 2013; Kellogg 2009; Llewellyn 2001; Rouleau
and Balogun 2011). In Reay et al. (2006), instead,
MMs engage in a ‘small wins’ approach that in-
volved proving the value of the new way to oth-
ers and fitting new way into established struc-
tures (i.e. aligning systems). Middle managers used
their embeddedness to ‘draw on their knowledge
of their immediate work environments, their pro-
fessional linkages and their understandings of how
other health professionals were likely to respond
to change to inform and develop actions designed
to prove the value of the new role’ (Reay et al.
2006, p. 988). Subsequently, Reay et al. (2013)
showed MMs encouraging others ‘trying it’, i.e.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
G. Radaelli and L. Sitton-Kent
framing translation as an ‘experiment’ and allowing
professionals to assess its value through direct expe-
rience and propose incremental adjustments.
Knowledge of MMs’ choice of channels, involve-
ment and formality remains generic, e.g. ‘selling
channels may be public (such as weekly staff meet-
ings, monthly strategy meetings, annual stockholder
meetings) or private (such as private meetings)’ (Ling
et al. 2005, p. 640) or confined to theoretical propo-
sitions, e.g. Dutton and Ashford (1993) arguing that
using public channels and tailoring formality to match
prevailing organizational norms increase top manage-
ment’s attention and sellers’ credibility.
Mediating others’ version. Middle managers rarely
accept others’ versions ‘as is’, but pursue three tac-
tics to set boundaries. First, MMs use discourses to
publicize their concerns through formal settings and
instruments, such as meetings and texts (Courpasson
et al. 2012; Currie and Brown 2003; Huy et al. 2014;
McDermott et al. 2013; Raaijmakers et al. 2015) or
informal ones, such as rumours and gossiping (Ba-
logun and Johnson 2004, 2005; Conway and Monks
2011; Kellogg 2009; Ogbonna and Wilkinson 2003;
Suominen and Mantere 2010). These discourses un-
dermine the moral foundations of the version, chal-
lenging the idea as inappropriate to the organization,
or undermine cause–effect claims, challenging the
core assumption that the proposed change will pro-
vide the anticipated benefits. Currie and colleagues
recurrently highlighted these efforts, showing MMs
who ‘evolve a narrative that harboured doubts regard-
ing the efficacy of some of the programmes’ (Currie
and Brown 2003, p. 573), push claims that ‘the generic
local pay framework would blow a hole in our bud-
get’ (Currie and Procter 2001, p. 61) or argue that a
business planning process ‘did not reflect local clin-
ical and managerial practice’ (Currie 1999, p. 148).
In contrast, MMs might claim that translation hurts
their identity, in which case MMs work to reinforce
the weakened identity through positive labels (e.g.
commanders, beasts of burden, wingmen in Currie
and Brown 2003; Kellogg 2009; see also Llewellyn
2001).
Second, MMs reconfigure the balance of power
within the organization. Courpasson et al. (2012,
p. 813) highlight a ‘realignment of power relations
. . . permitted by resisters’ capacity to take on new
roles that challenged the usual relationships between
contenders’ and that they ‘temporarily seized power
and forced top management’s cooperation through
different threats’. Since this opposition is riskier for
Middle Managers and New Ideas
interpersonal relationships and internal recognition,
MMs typically join coalitions with more powerful,
actors (Courpasson et al. 2012; Kellogg 2009; Raaij-
makers et al. 2015).
Third, MMs engage in practical forms of resistance
such as deliberately taking ineffective action or cre-
ating ‘roadblocks’ (Courpasson et al. 2012; Currie
and Procter 2005; Guth and MacMillan 1986; Hoon
2007; Huy et al. 2014; Meyer 2006; Ogbonna and
Wilkinson 2003), using time as a buffering resource
to delay decisions and slow down change (Raaijmak-
ers et al. 2015), showing feigned interest by ‘pay-
ing lip service’ to change (Currie and Procter (2005,
p. 1336) or foot dragging, e.g. carrying on as nor-
mal and pulling ‘the wool over HR’s eyes so they
think things have changed’ (Currie and Procter 2005,
p. 1337).
Aligning goals and agendas. Middle managers need
to align their goals with participants to achieve agree-
ments on the translation (Balogun 2003; Balogun
and Johnson 2004; Balogun et al. 2005; Conway and
Monks 2011; Currie and Procter 2001; Hoon 2007;
Kaplan 2008; Rouleau and Balogun 2011; Sharma
and Good 2013; Suominen and Mantere 2010; War-
ing and Bishop 2010).
Kaplan (2008) adopted the framing theory to show
how MMs bridge different goals, e.g. reframing the
implementation of radical technologies as a set of in-
cremental steps to accommodate local concerns, am-
plify a specific need/goal to make translation more
palatable to key stakeholders; extend their primary
goals to include incidental objectives, important for
potential adherents; and transform goals, accepting
to pursue different directions. In contrast, Balogun
et al. (2005) talk about boundary shaking, i.e. MMs
adjust measurement systems, develop rewards and in-
centives, formalize objectives and performance indi-
cators to align agendas, use formal and informal com-
munications to pick people off individually to explore
what they wanted, read signals and juggle priorities,
and re-identify with new goals.
Aligning meanings and interpretations. The align-
ment of meanings is crucial to allow everybody to
move in a common direction. Beck and Plowman
(2009) acknowledge MMs’ centrality in this process,
as they can exploit their intermediate position to have
a close and systemic look at the diverse interpreta-
tions emerging from the organization. For this pur-
pose, MMs broker knowledge among actors, synthe-
size information and negotiate meanings (Balogun

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
323
2003; Balogun et al. 2005; Beck and Plowman 2009;
Burgess and Currie 2013; Hoon 2007; Jones 2005,
2006; Reay et al. 2006; Sharma and Good 2013;
Teulier and Rouleau 2013; Valentino and Brunelle
2004; Waring and Bishop 2010). Few studies, how-
ever, highlight specific micro-practices, i.e. Kaplan
(2008), who applied the four framing micro-practices
also to align meanings and interpretations, while other
studies show the use of boundary-spanning tools, e.g.
writing sessions (Teulier and Rouleau 2013), training
and formation (Burgess and Currie 2013) and meet-
ings and informal conversations (Balogun et al. 2005,
Hoon 2007).
Contingencies to network enrolment and alignment.
Middle managers might struggle to enrol and align
actors in the translation network, given that they lack
the hierarchical authority of top managers and the ex-
pert/professional knowledge of frontline staff. Hence,
several studies spell out factors that shape their ca-
pacity to mobilize networks.
Middle managers’ individual features appear cru-
cial. Middle managers with greater reflexivity, proac-
tivity and innovativeness are more likely to succeed
because they put more motivation and effort into the
process (Chen et al. 2015; Howell and Boies 2004).
Studies focus on MMs’ knowledge of the ‘collective
and intimate knowledge of their organizations’ sys-
tems’ (Reay et al. 2006, p. 988), ‘implicit knowledge
of the power effects surrounding the client discourse’
(Rouleau 2005, p. 1431) and generally on organiza-
tional discourses and symbols (Behrens et al. 2014;
Delmestri and Walgenbach 2005; Hoon 2007; Howell
and Boies 2004; Huy 2002; Huy et al. 2014; Larsen
1993; Mennicken 2008; Mom et al. 2007; Rouleau
and Balogun 2011). Furthermore, Sharma and Good
(2013) observe that MMs are effective when they pos-
sess emotional, integrative and behavioural complex-
ities to differentiate emotional responses and options
of change. These attributes are especially relevant in
professional settings where frontlines use their expert
knowledge to resist change. Studies emphasize the
facilitation of being hybrid MMs, i.e. possessing pro-
fessional background to address frontline needs (e.g.
Burgess and Currie 2013; Currie 2006; Currie and
Procter 2005; Kellogg 2009; Llewellyn 2001; Reay
et al. 2006, 2013). Llewellyn (2001), particularly, ar-
gue that hybrid MMs can act as ‘two-way windows’,
because they can use their professional language and
background to understand expert knowledge, man-
age conversations with professionals, and align the
process to professional interests.
324
Middle managers’ network position is also rele-
vant. Strong ties facilitate the communication of in-
formation and collaboration (Ahearne et al. 2014; Shi
et al. 2009), while structural holes facilitate reach-
ing out ‘distant’ relationships (Chen et al. 2015;
Gargiulo and Benassi 2000; Rodan and Galunic
2004). So, MMs in boundary-spanning positions can
exert higher levels of influence as they have both
(Burgess and Currie 2013; Floyd and Wooldridge
1997; Shi et al. 2009). Kellogg (2009, p. 685) intro-
duced the notion of relational spaces, i.e. free spaces
that allowed ‘for isolation from defenders, interaction
among reformers, and inclusion in all work positions
involved in [translation]’. Translation is then more
likely, because MMs bring their allies in common
spaces of interaction, separate from ‘enemies’ and
develop relational efficacy, identity and frames.
Finally, strategically inclusive top managers who
provide more resources and eliminate barriers facili-
tate MMs’ translation work (Fenton-O’Creevy 2001;
Herzig and Jimmieson 2006; Hornsby et al. 2002;
Huy 2002; Huy et al. 2014; Ogbonna and Wilkinson
2003; Meyer 2006; Sharma and Good 2013). Close-
ness with top managers facilitates MMs who grow
more confident and resourceful (Ashford et al. 1998;
Balogun and Johnson 2004; Currie and Procter 2005;
Dutton et al. 1997; Fenton-O’Creevy 2001; Ling et al.
2005; Mantere 2008; Raes et al. 2011; Sillince and
Mueller 2007; Sims 2003). However, allowing dis-
cretion is also important, since too many cues might
trap MMs in conformity (Glaser et al. 2015; Taylor
and Helfat 2009; Thomas and Ambrosini 2015). Fur-
thermore, Balogun and Johnson (2004), Hoon (2007)
and Raes et al. (2011) evidenced that MMs can cope
with sporadic contacts with top managers if they
have other interfaces in the organization, about which
little is known, however.
Idea stabilization
Stabilization represents the final translation process,
in which MMs consolidate the idea within established
routines and structures. No study explicitly focuses
on this process, while a few describe the aftermath
of alignment attempts. In such paucity of studies, we
identified two themes.
First, MMs consolidate the translation within orga-
nizational systems, adjusting measurement systems
to assess whether and how the organization complies
with the new order (Balogun et al. 2005; Mennicken
2008); and embedding the new solution within HR
structures, such as payroll banding categories (Currie

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
G. Radaelli and L. Sitton-Kent
and Procter 2005; Reay et al. 2006). Reay et al. (2006,
p. 987) explicitly described MMs fitting the ‘new’ way
into established systems by ‘identifying and adopt-
ing a consistent definition’, ‘identifying and review-
ing current positions utilizing advanced nursing prac-
tice’, ‘defining the scope of practices/responsibilities
within these roles’, ‘defining consistent roles/titles to
be used’, ‘producing clear job descriptions’ and ‘re-
moving systems barriers’. Only a few other studies
show MMs in similar endeavours, while most high-
light top managers’ role (Conway and Monks 2011;
Hoon 2007; Teulier and Rouleau 2013).
Second, MMs consolidate new meanings. Beck and
Plowman (2009) argue that MMs are most effective
in performing this task, as their intermediate posi-
tion allows bridging of information from different
organizational sources to capture important lessons
from all levels. Empirical research on the stabilization
of meanings is lacking, however. At most, research
on the alignment of meanings provides indirect in-
sights into what MMs do to stabilize the final solution
(Balogun et al. 2005; Burgess and Currie 2013; Hoon
2007; Jones 2005, 2006; Reay et al. 2006; Sharma and
Good 2013; Teulier and Rouleau 2013). The literature
overlaps the two processes, suggesting that alignment
begins to create stabilization. It remains unclear, how-
ever, which micro-practices are specific about stabi-
lization, when the idea also needs to be ‘durable’ and
how the idea is maintained/adapted/corrected once
exposed to external changes over time.
Discussion
The translation perspective fosters the notion that
the spread in time and space of new ideas is ‘in
the hands of people’ (Johnson and Hagström 2005,
p. 371), but earlier research has rarely produced sys-
tematic assessments of how specific organizational
actors undertake the translation of new ideas. Our
review responds to this gap, reconstructing the size-
able, but dispersed, body of research on MMs through
the lens of translation theory. We thus identified: (i)
the macro-stages of the translation process in which
MMs intervene; (ii) the micro-practices undertaken
to affect the translation of new ideas; and (iii) the
contingencies that explain when MMs are willing and
able to act as translators. Translation emerged as a key
function characterizing MMs’ role in the organiza-
tion, since the multiform roles of MMs as strategiz-
ers, corporate entrepreneurs, innovators, knowledge
brokers or boundary spanners can all be appreciated
Middle Managers and New Ideas
as MMs using multiple micro-practices to move new
ideas ‘from here to there’. We highlight that MMs do
not intervene in small segments of the translation pro-
cess, but appropriate key roles from the acquisition
of new ideas to their stabilization in the organization
(Figures 1 and 2).
The review highlights how most study have focused
on MMs organizing and managing the ‘travel’ of new
ideas – particularly, how they legitimize their role and
manage the translation network. In doing so, MMs’
micro-practices exploit two tightly connected tactics,
i.e. (i) use persuasive narratives and discourses, via
everyday mediums of meetings and informal conver-
sations, to gain others’ attachment and (ii) use their
lynchpin position as currency to connect different or-
ganizational layers and gain visibility in the network.
The field abounds with insights into MMs’ narra-
tion of change, with items such as ‘reading the wind’
(Dutton et al. 1997), ‘drawing on context’ that stress
their sensemaking to understand when and how trans-
lation should be initiated. ‘Talking-up’ (Sillince and
Mueller 2007), ‘labelling’ (Kellogg 2009) or ‘over-
coding’ (Rouleau 2005) stress their sensegiving to
attract others’ attention. The intermediate position
shapes MMs’ agency, because it engenders risks as-
sociated with being controlled by top managers and
resisted by employees. Being ‘astute’ players, MMs
carefully scan the environment to prevent interper-
sonal and organizational risks, develop coalitions to
access complementary assets and neutralize oppo-
nents, avoid ‘grand narratives’ by projecting into oth-
ers’ identity, withholding their personal interests and
staging gradual initiatives. Middle managers’ cau-
tiousness appears a significant departure from claims
that top managers act as ‘micro-statesmen’ who mas-
ter grand narratives and perform exemplary instances
of leadership to support change (Kraatz 2009); and
that professional/expert employees are gatekeepers of
the dominant language and discourse in the organiza-
tion (Abbott 1988; Freidson 1986).
The intermediate position is also a key asset that
MMs use to affect the development of the transla-
tion process. Middle managers are close enough to
top management to embrace their systemic sense of
change; and close enough to the frontline to take its
pulse for change. Middle managers consciously as-
sume a lynchpin role to enact micro-practices that
they might be the only or the best to deploy. For
instance, MMs are uniquely positioned to balance
local emotions (Huy 2002, 2011), because they can
directly access employees’ everyday life while retain-
ing managerial expectations, running socio-material

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
325
mediums such as meetings (Hoon 2007), and to syn-
thesize the dispersed knowledge in the organization
(Courpasson et al. 2012). Middle managers use coali-
tions, ‘small wins’ and careful narratives to act more
‘politically’. In doing so, MMs reach diverse layers
of the organization and gain access to assets that they
lack. As Wooldridge et al. (2008, p. 1192) observed:
‘what makes MMs unique is their access to top man-
agement coupled with their knowledge of operations
[which] enables them to function as mediators be-
tween the organization’s strategy and day-to-day ac-
tivities’. In addition, MMs build on ‘small’ actions
and on their ‘embedded wisdom’ (Reay et al. 2006)
to set in motion the collective knowledge of the orga-
nization and shape its direction.
Taking together these considerations, we highlight
that three properties – their lynchpin position,
organizational embeddedness and limited hier-
archical/professional power – affect how MMs
translate new ideas. These features generate inter-
personal/organizational risks and practical problems
that limit the possibility to force the translation of
new ideas. However, they also create favourable con-
ditions to gain insights into how to shape appropriate
discourses across different cadres of organizational
actors and to gain strong connections with relevant
stakeholders.
The adoption of a translation framework also high-
lights four issues that require more consideration in
future research. First, the emphasis on narratives and
network mobilization addresses only half our defi-
nition of ‘translation’, i.e. how MMs organize the
travel ‘from here to there’. The other half relates to
how MMs change/adapt the idea during this move-
ment, i.e. to ‘idea variation’ (Czarniawska and Jo-
erges 1996). Structured analysis of this engagement
is rare (e.g. Kaplan 2008), but is strongly needed,
because how MMs tactically approach idea variation
represents a precious window to understand the in-
terests, values and skills that guide their actions and
shape their identity in the organization. In particular,
previous research hinted at the existence of ‘transla-
tion rules’ that can be abstracted from specific con-
texts and translations, and generalized (Røvik 1996;
Wæraas and Sataøen 2014). This begets several ques-
tions: does the peculiar position, embeddedness and
status of MMs shape peculiar translation rules or ap-
proaches to idea variation? Do MMs use specific
formats, tools and contents during idea varia-
tion? Do different perceptions of organizational
risk/opportunity affect peculiar tactics in idea
variation?
326
Second, the emphasis on narratives and network
mobilization diverges from the literature on top man-
agement, which also highlight material interventions
such as allocating resources, developing structures
and regulations; and from that on employees,
which highlights material interventions to translate
their expert/professional knowledge into practice
(Jarzabkowski 2008; Wrzesniewski and Dutton
2001). Middle managers’ material interventions
employed during translation are largely overlooked,
and this lack of evidence begets important questions
of whether MMs’ translation agency is actually
restricted to sensemaking and sensegiving; and
whether MMs privilege narratives and discourses
over other forms of intervention.
Third, limited theory explains how MMs acquire,
assimilate and stabilize ideas, which also begets im-
portant questions on how systematic and relevant
MMs’ contribution is at these stages. For instance, we
note that research highlights how MMs draw on con-
text (Rouleau and Balogun 2011) and gain quick ac-
cess to relevant knowledge through social interactions
(Rodan and Galunic 2004). This might suggest that
MMs assimilate, retrieve and use knowledge through
unstructured, adaptive and almost improvisational ap-
proaches. It remains unclear, however, whether and
how MMs also rely on systematic and structured ap-
proaches to identify, store and retrieve information
before and during translation. Similarly, it remains
uncertain how MMs engrain the translated ideas in
organizational routines and practices. This gap ap-
pears significant, considering how institutional devel-
opments of translation theory suggest that the agency
operated during change can differ from that oper-
ated afterwards, during the maintenance of change
(Lawrence and Suddaby 2006). Future research is thus
required to assess what MMs do to preserve/adjust the
translation over time, when/how alignment overlaps
with stabilization and when/how they represent two
distinct processes.
Fourth, the contingencies that shape MMs’ inten-
tion and effectiveness to translate new ideas present
important results, but also relevant gaps. Previous
research identified several contingencies that stim-
ulate MMs away from ancillary roles. In doing so,
it challenged pre-existing assumptions, and shaped
a better understanding of MMs’ decision-making.
Perhaps most notably, previous research challenged
the assumption that MMs need top managers to ‘set
the direction, provide the field of interaction; select
the participants in the field; establish the guidelines
and deadlines for projects’ (Nonaka 1994, p. 31).

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
G. Radaelli and L. Sitton-Kent
Instead, MMs (i) can adapt to contexts without top
management support, because they can use horizon-
tal, bottom and external interactions to compensate
(Balogun and Johnson 2004; Hoon 2007) and (ii)
might be sensitive to ‘too much’ support from top
management and be driven to complacency. This sug-
gests that top managers can best support MMs by bal-
ancing discretion and direction, and by increasing the
clarity of their relationship with MMs, thus allowing
MMs to adapt their tactics accordingly. More gen-
erally, no contingency appears strictly necessary for
MMs’ involvement in the translation of new ideas.
Studies show MMs acting in contrasting scenarios,
e.g. with and without top management, frontline or
peer support, in stable or highly unstable environ-
ments, or with several or limited resources. This
suggests that the factors illustrated in Figure 3 fa-
cilitate/hinder MMs’ involvement, but do not neces-
sarily enable/block them. Rather, MMs can use their
lynchpin position and organizational embeddedness
to adapt to different circumstances. Perhaps, MMs’
personal disposition ultimately explains engagement
with translation, while the knowledge of organiza-
tional discourses and possession of favourable social
ties explains greater effectiveness.
On the downside, several issues remain underex-
plored. Perhaps most noticeably, the relationship with
frontline staff has received limited attention, and ap-
pears grounded on generic assumptions that employ-
ees’ resistance would inhibit MMs’ engagement, and
their support would stimulate it. Such relationship
needs more scrutiny to achieve insightfulness com-
parable to that achieved about the relationship with
top managers – especially considering that organiza-
tions’ increasing professionalization of their frontline
makes the interface with employees increasingly de-
cisive for MMs (Muzio et al. 2013; Von Nordenfly-
cht 2010). Furthermore, we are confronted with an
abundance of evidence on MMs’ intention to appro-
priate a translation role and on their effectiveness to
enrol/align actors in translation networks (Figure 3).
There is possibly an overabundance of stimuli in the
first area, since we are exposed to several insights into
the role of individual features, organizational role and
social relationships, but it still remains rather unclear
(i) which feature is most relevant for MMs and (ii)
how these contingencies relate to each other. Thus, we
also suggest that there is extended room to develop
more in-depth analysis of MMs’ decision-making be-
fore and during the appropriation of a translation role.
On the other hand, very little is known about contin-
gencies shaping other translation stages. More studies
Middle Managers and New Ideas
are needed to explain when MMs develop an intention
and increase their effectiveness to acquire new ideas,
legitimize their translation role, and actually operate
and stabilize the translation.
Conclusions
Our review shows that MMs intervene during all
stages of the translation process with micro-practices
that affect employees, peers and top managers.
Middle managers are at once limited by lack of hier-
archical power or expert knowledge, and empowered
by their embeddedness and intermediate position. So,
they can directly reach any layer of the organization,
but they do so with incremental preparations and
political/tactical caution. Previous research mostly
characterized this agency in the form of narratives
and network mobilization, which means that MMs’
knowledge of organizational discourses and social
connectedness represent key resources that they have
to nurture. When they have these resources, MMs
are likely to adapt to influence executive managers,
employees and peers.
As a concluding remark, we observe two further
areas of research to move our review forward. First,
we collected studies describing translation that differ
in terms of ‘targets’ (e.g. translating new ideas to top
managers, employees, clients or peers) and ‘ideas’
being translated (e.g. translating regulations, strate-
gic ideas or new practices). Further research might
consider exploring these differences, classifying and
analysing translation micro-practices and highlight-
ing whether and how different targets and ideas shape
different forms of engagement. Second, the reviewed
studies describe MMs’ engagement with the trans-
lation of one specific idea, showing what they do
‘here and now’ to allow or resist change. No study
has investigated translation as a role that MMs per-
form over time, for multiple new ideas and as part of
their core responsibility. The possibility for a struc-
tured and continued translational role has been recog-
nized for R&D departments and executive managers
(Lane et al. 2006; Lewin et al. 2011), but not yet
for MMs. This is a noticeable gap, considering the
growing emphasis on MM’s stable involvement in
strategy-making and continuous improvement initia-
tives (Wooldridge et al. 2008). Future research should
pay particular attention to MMs with stable and for-
mal involvement with translation and clarify: when
and how MMs engage with the translation of multi-
ple ideas as a systematic and structured routine over

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
327
time, rather than an extemporaneous engagement; and
when and how organizations develop conditions for
MMs’ systematic engagement (e.g. how would they
frame this responsibility within established ancillary
and diplomatic roles?). Findings from this change
of perspective might originate peculiar insights and
explanations on MMs’ agency, resistance and contin-
gencies that this review cannot anticipate.
References
*Indicates paper relevant to this review.
Abbott, A.D. (1988). The System of Professions: An Essay
on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
*Ahearne, M., Lam, S.K. and Kraus, F. (2014). Performance
impact of middle managers’ adaptive strategy implemen-
tation: the role of social capital. Strategic Management
Journal, 35, pp. 68–87.
*Allard-Poesi, F. (2015). Dancing in the dark: making
sense of managerial roles during strategic conversa-
tions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, doi: 10.1016/
j/scaman.2015.04.002.
Ansari, S.M., Fiss, P.C. and Zajac, E.J. (2010). Made to fit:
how practices vary as they diffuse. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 35, pp. 67–92.
*Ashford, S.J., Rothbard, N.P., Piderit, S.K. and Dutton, J.E.
(1998). Out on a limb: the role of context and impression
management in selling gender-equity issues. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 43, pp. 23–57.
*Balogun, J. (2003). From blaming the middle to harness-
ing its potential: creating change intermediaries. British
Journal of Management, 14, pp. 69–83.
*Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational re-
structuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy
of Management Journal, 47, pp. 523–549.
*Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strate-
gies to unintended outcomes: the impact of change re-
cipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26, pp. 1573–
1601.
*Balogun, J., Gleadle, P., Hailey, V.H. and Willmott, H.
(2005). Managing change across boundaries: boundary-
shaking practices. British Journal of Management, 16, pp.
261–278.
*Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1993). Beyond the M-form:
toward a managerial theory of the firm. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 14, pp. 23–46.
*Barton, L.C. and Ambrosini, V. (2013). The moderating ef-
fect of organizational change cynicism on middle manager
strategy commitment. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 24, pp. 721–746.
*Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and institutions: the enabling
role of individuals’ social position. Organization, 13,
pp. 653–676.
328
*Battilana, J. (2011). The enabling role of social position in
diverging from the institutional status quo: evidence from
the UK National Health Service. Organization Science,
22, pp. 817–834.
*Battilana, J. and Casciaro, T. (2012). Change agents, net-
works, and institutions: a contingency theory of organi-
zational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55,
pp. 381–398.
*Battilana, J., Leca, B. and Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How ac-
tors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional
entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3,
pp. 65–107.
*Beatty, C.A. and Lee, G.L. (1992). Leadership among mid-
dle managers – an exploration in the context of technolog-
ical change. Human Relations, 45, pp. 957–989.
*Beck, T.E. and Plowman, D.A. (2009). Experiencing rare
and unusual events richly: the role of middle managers
in animating and guiding organizational interpretation.
Organization Science, 20, pp. 909–924.
*Beech, N. (2000). Narrative styles of managers and workers:
a tale of star-crossed lovers. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 36, pp. 210–228.
*Behrens, J., Ernst, H. and Shepherd, D.A. (2014). The deci-
sion to exploit an R&D project: divergent thinking across
middle and senior managers. Journal of Product Innova-
tion Management, 31, pp. 144–158.
Benford, R.D. and Snow, D.A. (2000). Framing processes and
social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual
Review of Sociology, 26, pp. 611–639.
*Boxenbaum, E. and Battilana, J. (2005). Importation as in-
novation: transposing managerial practices across fields.
Strategic Organization, 3, pp. 355–383.
Boxenbaum, E. and Strandgaard Pedersen, J. (2009). Scan-
dinavian institutionalism: a case of institutional work. In
Lawrence, T B., Suddaby, R. and Leca, B. (eds), Institu-
tional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of
Organization. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press,
pp. 178–204.
Buchanan, D., Fitzgerald, L., Ketley, D., Gollop, R., Jones,
J. L., Lamont, S. S., Neath, A. and Whitby, E. (2005). No
going back: a review of the literature on sustaining orga-
nizational change. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 7, pp. 189–205.
*Burgess, N. and Currie, G. (2013). The knowledge broker-
ing role of the hybrid middle level manager: the case of
healthcare. British Journal of Management, 24, pp. S132–
S142.
*Burgess, N., Strauss, K., Currie, G. and Wood, G. (2015).
Organizational ambidexterity and the hybrid middle man-
ager: the case of patient safety in UK hospitals. Human
Resource Management, doi: 10.1002/hrm.21725.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of trans-
lation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of
St. Brieuc Bay. In Law, J. (ed.), Power, Action, and Be-
lief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge,
pp. 196–223.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
G. Radaelli and L. Sitton-Kent
*Chua, W.F. (1995). Experts, networks and inscriptions in the
fabrication of accounting images: a story of the represen-
tation of three public hospitals. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 20, pp. 111–145.
*Chen, M.H., Chang, Y.Y. and Chang, Y.C. (2015). En-
trepreneurial orientation, social networks, and creative per-
formance: middle managers as corporate entrepreneurs.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 24, pp. 493–
507.
Christiansen, U. and Thrane, S. (2014). The prose of ac-
tion: the micro dynamics of reporting on emerging risks
in operational risk management. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 30, pp. 427–443.
*Chua, W.F. (1995). Experts, networks and inscriptions in the
fabrication of accounting images: a story of the represen-
tation of three public hospitals. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 20, pp. 111–145.
*Ciuk, S. and James, P. (2014). Interlingual transla-
tion and the transfer of value-infused practices: an in-
depth qualitative exploration. Management Learning, doi:
10.1177/1350507614560304.
*Conway, E. and Monks, K. (2011). Change from below: the
role of middle managers in mediating paradoxical change.
Human Resource Management Journal, 21, pp. 190–203.
Cornelissen, J.P. and Werner, M.D. (2014). Putting framing in
perspective: a review of framing and frame analysis across
the management and organizational literature. Academy of
Management Annals, 8, pp. 181–235.
Cornelissen, J.P., Holt, R. and Zundel, M. (2011). The role
of analogy and metaphor in the framing and legitimization
of strategic change. Organization Studies, 32, pp. 1701–
1716.
*Courpasson, D., Dany, F. and Clegg, S. (2012). Resisters at
work: generating productive resistance in the workplace.
Organization Science, 23, pp. 801–819.
Creed, W.D., Scully, M.A. and Austin, J.R. (2002). Clothes
make the person? The tailoring of legitimating accounts
and the social construction of identity. Organization Sci-
ence, 13, pp. 475–496.
*Crossan, M. M. and Berdrow, I. (2003). Organizational
learning and strategic renewal. Strategic Management
Journal, 24, pp. 1087–1105.
*Currie, G. (1999). The influence of middle managers in the
business planning process: a case study in the UK NHS.
British Journal of Management, 10, pp. 141–155.
*Currie, G. (2006). Reluctant but resourceful middle man-
agers: the case of nurses in the NHS. Journal of Nursing
Management, 14, pp. 5–12.
*Currie, G. and Brown, A. D. (2003). A narratological ap-
proach to understanding processes of organizing in a UK
hospital. Human Relations, 56, pp. 563–586.
*Currie, G. and Procter, S.J. (2001). Exploring the relation-
ship between HR and middle managers. Human Resource
Management Journal, 11, pp. 53–69.
*Currie, G. and Procter, S.J. (2005). The antecedents of
middle managers’ strategic contribution: the case of a
Middle Managers and New Ideas
professional bureaucracy. Journal of Management Stud-
ies, 42, pp. 1325–1356.
*Currie, G., Lockett, A., Finn, R., Martin, G. and Waring, J.
(2012). Institutional work to maintain professional power:
recreating the model of medical professionalism. Organi-
zation Studies, 33, pp. 937–962.
*Currie, G., Burgess, N. and Hayton, J.C. (2015). HR prac-
tices and knowledge brokering by hybrid middle managers
in hospital settings: the influence of professional hierarchy.
Human Resource Management, 54, pp. 793–812.
Czarniawska, B. and Joerges, B. (1996). Travel of ideas. In
Czarniawska, B. and Sevón, G. (eds), Translating Organi-
zational Change. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 13–48.
Czarniawska, B. and Sevón, G. (1996). Translating Organi-
zational Change. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
*Delmestri, G. and Walgenbach, P. (2005). Mastering tech-
niques or brokering knowledge? Middle managers in Ger-
many, Great Britain and Italy. Organization Studies, 26,
pp. 197–220.
Doorewaard, H. and Van Bijsterveld, M. (2001). The osmo-
sis of ideas: an analysis of the integrated approach to IT
management from a translation theory perspective. Orga-
nization, 8, pp. 55–76.
Dopson, S. and Stewart, R. (1990). What is happening to
middle management? British Journal of Management, 1,
pp. 3–16.
*Dutton, J.E. and Ashford, S.J. (1993). Selling issues to
top management. Academy of Management Review, 18,
pp. 397–428.
*Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S.J., O’Neill, R.M., Hayes, E. and
Wierba, E.E. (1997). Reading the wind: how middle man-
agers assess the context for selling issues to top managers,
Strategic Management Journal, 18, pp. 407–423.
*Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S.J., O’Neill, D.R. and Lawrence,
K.A. (2001). Moves that matter: issue selling and orga-
nizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
pp. 716–736.
*Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S.J., Lawrence, K.A. and Miner-
Rubino, K. (2002). Red light, green light: making sense of
the organizational context for issue selling. Organization
Science, 13, pp. 355–369
*Fairhurst, G., Cooren, F. and Cahill, D. (2002). Discursive-
ness, contradiction and unintended consequences in suc-
cessive downsizings. Management Communication Quar-
terly, 15, pp. 501–540.
*Fauré, B. and Rouleau, L. (2011). The strategic competence
of accountants and middle managers in budget making.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36, pp. 167–182.
*Fenton-O’Creevy, M. (2001). Employee involvement and
the middle manager: saboteur or scapegoat?. Human Re-
source Management Journal, 11, pp. 24–40.
*Fitzgerald, L., Ferlie, E., McGivern, G. and Buchanan, D.
(2013). Distributed leadership patterns and service im-
provement: Evidence and argument from English health-
care. Leadership Quarterly, 24, pp. 227–239.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
329
*Floyd, S.W. and Lane, P.J. (2000). Strategizing throughout
the organization: managing role conflict in strategic re-
newal. Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 154–177.
*Floyd, S.W. and Wooldridge, B. (1992). Middle manage-
ment involvement in strategy and its association with
strategic type: a research note. Strategic Management
Journal, 13(S1), pp. 153–167.
*Floyd, S.W. and Wooldridge, B. (1997). Middle manage-
ment’s strategic influence and organizational performance.
Journal of Management Studies, 34, pp. 465–485.
Ford, J. and Collinson, D. (2011). In search of the perfect
manager? Work–life balance and managerial work. Work,
Employment & Society, 25, pp. 257–273.
Foss, N.J., Husted, K. and Michailova, S. (2010). Govern-
ing knowledge sharing in organizations: levels of analysis,
governance mechanisms, and research directions. Journal
of Management Studies, 47, pp. 455–482.
Freidson E (1986). Professional Powers: A Study of the In-
stitutionalization of Formal Knowledge. Chicago, IL: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press
*Gargiulo, M. and Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped in your own
net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation
of social capital. Organization Science, 11, pp. 183–196.
Gherardi, S. and Perrotta, M. (2011). Egg dates sperm: a tale
of a practice change and its stabilization. Organization,
18, 595–614.
*Glaser, L., Fourné, S.P. and Elfring, T. (2015). Achiev-
ing strategic renewal: the multi-level influences of top
and middle managers’ boundary-spanning. Small Business
Economics, doi:10.1007/s11187-015-9633-5.
*Gong, Y., Chang, S. and Cheung, S.Y. (2010). High per-
formance work system and collective OCB: a collective
social exchange perspective. Human Resource Manage-
ment Journal, 20, pp. 119–137.
*Guth, W.D. and MacMillan, I.C. (1986). Strategy implemen-
tation versus middle management self-interest. Strategic
Management Journal, 7, pp. 313–327.
*Harding, N., Lee, H. and Ford, J. (2014). Who is the middle
manager? Human Relations, 67, pp. 1213–1237.
*Hay, A. (2014). ‘I don’t know what I am doing!’: surfac-
ing struggles of managerial identity work. Management
Learning, 45, pp. 509–524.
*Herzig, S.E. and Jimmieson, N.L. (2006). Middle managers’
uncertainty management during organizational change.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27,
pp. 628–645.
*Hoon, C. (2007). Committees as strategic practice: the role
of strategic conversation in a public administration. Human
Relations, 60, pp. 921–952.
Hoon, C. (2013). Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies
an approach to theory building. Organizational Research
Methods, 16, pp. 522–556.
*Hope, O. (2010). The politics of middle management sense-
making and sensegiving. Journal of Change Management,
10, pp. 195–215.
330
*Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F. and Zahra, S.A. (2002). Middle
managers’ perception of the internal environment for cor-
porate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale.
Journal of Business Venturing, 17, pp. 253–273.
*Howell, J.M. and Boies, K. (2004). Champions of techno-
logical innovation: the influence of contextual knowledge,
role orientation, idea generation, and idea promotion on
champion emergence. Leadership Quarterly, 15, pp. 123–
143.
*Huy, Q.N. (2001). In praise of middle managers. Harvard
Business Review, 79, pp. 72–81.
*Huy, Q.N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational
continuity and radical change: the contribution of middle
managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, pp. 31–
69.
*Huy, Q.N. (2011). How middle managers’ group-focus
emotions and social identities influence strategy imple-
mentation. Strategic Management Journal, 32, pp. 1387–
1410.
*Huy, Q.N., Corley, K.G. and Kraatz, M.S. (2014). From
support to mutiny: shifting legitimacy judgments and emo-
tional reactions impacting the implementation of radical
change. Academy of Management Journal, 57, pp. 1650–
1680.
*Jakobsen, M. and Lueg, R. (2014). Balanced scorecard and
controllability at the level of middle managers–the case of
unintended breaches. Journal of Accounting & Organiza-
tional Change, 10, pp. 516–539.
*Janczak, S. (2004). How middle managers integrate knowl-
edge within projects. Knowledge and Process Manage-
ment, 11, pp. 210–224.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2008). Shaping strategy as a structuration
process. Academy of Management Journal, 51, pp. 621–
650.
Johnson, B. and Hagström, B. (2005). The translation per-
spective as an alternative to the policy diffusion paradigm:
the case of the Swedish methadone maintenance treatment.
Journal of Social Policy, 34, pp. 365–388.
*Jones, O. (2005). Manufacturing regeneration through cor-
porate entrepreneurship: middle managers and organiza-
tional innovation. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 25, pp. 491–511.
*Jones, O. (2006). Developing absorptive capacity in ma-
ture organizations. the change agent’s role. Management
Learning, 37, pp. 355–376.
Jones, T.C. and Dugdale, D. (2002). The ABC bandwagon
and the juggernaut of modernity. Accounting, Organiza-
tions and Society, 27, pp. 121–163.
*Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: strategy making under
uncertainty. Organization Science, 19, pp. 729–752.
*Kellogg, K.C. (2009). Operating room: relational spaces and
microinstitutional change in surgery. American Journal of
Sociology, 115, pp. 657–711.
Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B. and Gibson, C.B. (2006). A quar-
ter century of culture’s consequences: a review of em-
pirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
G. Radaelli and L. Sitton-Kent
framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37,
pp. 285–320.
Klein, K.J. and Sorra, J.S. (1996). The challenge of innova-
tion implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21,
pp. 1055–1080.
Kraatz, M.S. (2009). Leadership as institutional work: a
bridge to the other side. In Lawrence, T.B., Suddaby, R. and
Leca, B. (eds), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in
Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, pp. 59–91
*Kuratko, D.F. and Goldsby, M.G. (2004). Corporate en-
trepreneurs or rogue middle managers? A framework for
ethical corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Ethics, 55, pp. 13–30.
*Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G. and Hornsby,
J.S. (2005). A model of middle-level managers’ en-
trepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 29, pp. 699–716.
Lane, P.J., Koka, B.R. and Pathak, S. (2006). The reification
of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation
of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31,
pp. 833–863.
*Larsen, T.J. (1993). Middle managers’ contribution to im-
plemented information technology innovation. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 10, pp. 155–176.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists
and Engineers Through Society. Boston, MA: Harvard
University Press.
*Lawrence, T. B. and Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and in-
stitutional work. In Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T.B.
and Nord W.R. (eds), Handbook of Organization Studies,
2nd edn. London: Sage, pp. 215–254.
Lewin, A.Y., Massini, S. and Peeters, C. (2011). Microfoun-
dations of internal and external absorptive capacity rou-
tines. Organization Science, 22, pp. 81–98.
Lichtenthaler, U. and Lichtenthaler, E. (2009). A capability-
based framework for open innovation: complementing ab-
sorptive capacity. Journal of Management Studies, 46,
pp. 1315–1338.
*Ling, Y., Floyd, S.W. and Baldridge, D.C. (2005). Toward
a model of issue-selling by subsidiary managers in multi-
national organizations. Journal of International Business
Studies, 36, pp. 637–654.
*Llewellyn, S. (2001). ‘Two-way windows’: clinicians as
medical managers. Organization Studies, 22, pp. 593–
623.
*Mantere, S. (2005). Strategic practices as enablers and dis-
ablers of championing activity. Strategic Organization, 3,
pp. 157–184
*Mantere, S. (2008). Role expectations and middle man-
ager strategic agency. Journal of Management Studies, 45,
pp. 294–316.
*Marginson, D.E. (2002). Management control systems and
their effects on strategy formation at middle-management
levels: evidence from a UK organization. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 23, pp. 1019–1031.
Middle Managers and New Ideas
*McCabe, D. (2011). Opening Pandora’s box: the unintended
consequences of Stephen Covey’s effectiveness movement.
Management Learning, 42, pp. 183–197.
*McCann, L., Morris, J. and Hassard, J. (2008). Normalized
intensity: the new labour process of middle management.
Journal of Management Studies, 45, pp. 343–371.
*McDermott, A.M., Fitzgerald, L. and Buchanan, D.A.
(2013). Beyond acceptance and resistance: entrepreneurial
change agency responses in policy implementation. British
Journal of Management, 24, pp. S93–S115.
*Mennicken, A. (2008). Connecting worlds: the translation
of international auditing standards into post-Soviet au-
dit practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33,
pp. 384–414.
*Meyer, C.B. (2006). Destructive dynamics of middle man-
agement intervention in postmerger processes. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 42, pp. 397–419.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on Management. New York,
NY: Free Press.
*Mom, T.J., Van Den Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2007).
Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation ac-
tivities: the influence of top-down, bottom-up, and hori-
zontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Stud-
ies, 44, pp. 910–931.
*Morris, T. and Lancaster, Z. (2006). Translating manage-
ment ideas. Organization Studies, 27, pp. 207–233.
Muzio, D., Brock, D.M. and Suddaby, R. (2013). Professions
and institutional change: towards an institutionalist soci-
ology of the professions. Journal of Management Studies,
50, pp. 699–721.
*Nielsen, K. and Cleal, B. (2011). Under which conditions
do middle managers exhibit transformational leadership
behaviors? – An experience sampling method study on
the predictors of transformational leadership behaviors.
Leadership Quarterly, 22, pp. 344–352.
*Nonaka, I. (1988). Toward middle-up-down management:
accelerating information creation. Sloan Management Re-
view, 29, pp. 9–18.
*Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational
knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, pp. 14–
37.
*Ogbonna, E. and Wilkinson, B. (2003). The false promise
of organizational culture change: a case study of middle
managers in grocery retailing. Journal of Management
Studies, 40, pp. 1151–1178.
O’Reilly, C.A. III and Tushman, M.L. (2008). Ambidex-
terity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innova-
tor’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28,
pp. 185–206.
Orlikowski, W.J. (2000). Using technology and constituting
structures: a practice lens for studying technology in orga-
nizations. Organization Science, 11, pp. 404–428.
*Pappas, J.M. and Wooldridge, B. (2007). Middle managers’
divergent strategic activity: an investigation of multiple
measures of network centrality. Journal of Management
Studies, 44, pp. 323–341.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
331
Phillips, N., Sewell, G. and Jaynes, S. (2008). Applying crit-
ical discourse analysis in strategic management research.
Organizational Research Methods, 11, pp. 770–789.
*Raaijmakers, A.G., Vermeulen, P.A., Meeus, M.T. and Zi-
etsma, C. (2015). I need time! Exploring pathways to
compliance under institutional complexity. Academy of
Management Journal, 58, pp. 85–110.
*Raes, A.M., Heijltjes, M.G., Glunk, U. and Roe, R.A.
(2011). The interface of the top management team and
middle managers: a process model. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 36, pp. 102–126.
*Raman, S.R. (2009). Middle managers’ involvement in
strategic planning: an examination of roles and influencing
factors. Journal of General Management, 34, pp. 57–74
*Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K. and Germann, K. (2006). Le-
gitimizing a new role: small wins and microprocesses of
change. Academy of Management Journal, 49, pp. 977–
998.
*Reay, T., Chreim, S., Golden-Biddle, K., Goodrick, E.,
Williams, B. E., Casebeer, A., Pablo, A. and Hinings, C.R.
(2013). Transforming new ideas into practice: an activity
based perspective on the institutionalization of practices.
Journal of Management Studies, 50, pp. 963–990.
*Regnér, P. (2003). Strategy creation in the periphery: induc-
tive versus deductive strategy making. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 40, pp. 57–82.
*Ren, C.R. and Guo, C. (2011). Middle managers’ strategic
role in the corporate entrepreneurial process: attention-
based effects. Journal of Management, 37, pp. 1586–1610.
*Rodan, S. and Galunic, C. (2004). More than network struc-
ture: how knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial
performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management
Journal, 25, pp. 541–562.
Rogers, E.M. (2010). Diffusion of Innovations. New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster.
*Rothenberg, S. (2007). Environmental managers as institu-
tional entrepreneurs: the influence of institutional and tech-
nical pressures on waste management. Journal of Business
Research, 60, pp. 749–757.
*Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemak-
ing and sensegiving: how middle managers interpret and
sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42,
pp. 1413–1441.
*Rouleau, L. and Balogun, J. (2011). Middle managers,
strategic sensemaking, and discursive competence. Jour-
nal of Management Studies, 48, pp. 953–983.
Røvik, K.A. (1996). Deinstitutionalization and the logic of
fashion. In Czarniawska, B. and. Sévon, G. (eds), Translat-
ing Organizational Change. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 139–
172.
Røvik, K.A. (2011). From fashion to virus: an alternative
theory of organizations’ handling of management ideas.
Organization Studies, 32, pp. 631–653.
Sahlin, K. and Wedlin, L. (2008). Circulating ideas: imita-
tion, translation and editing. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C.,
Sahlin, K. and Suddaby, R. (eds), The SAGE Handbook of
332
Organizational Institutionalism. London: Sage, pp. 218–
242.
Sapulete, S., van Witteloostuijn, A. and Kaufmann, W.
(2014). An experimental study into the influence of works
council advice on managerial decision-making. Scandina-
vian Journal of Management, 30, pp. 358–371.
*Sharma, G. and Good, D. (2013). The work of middle man-
agers sensemaking and sensegiving for creating positive
social change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49,
pp. 95–122.
*Shi, W., Markoczy, L. and Dess, G.G. (2009). The role
of middle management in the strategy process: group af-
filiation, structural holes, and tertius iungens. Journal of
Management, 35, pp. 1453–1480.
*Sillince, J. and Mueller, F. (2007). Switching strategic per-
spective: the reframing of accounts of responsibility. Or-
ganization Studies, 28, pp. 155–176.
*Sims, D. (2003). Between the millstones: a narrative account
of the vulnerability of middle managers’ storying. Human
Relations, 56, pp. 1195–1211.
Sturdy, A. (2004). The adoption of management ideas and
practices theoretical perspectives and possibilities. Man-
agement Learning, 35, pp. 155–179.
*Suominen, K. and Mantere, S. (2010). Consuming strategy:
the art and practice of managers’ everyday strategy usage.
Advances in Strategic Management, 27, pp. 211–245.
*Taylor, A. and Helfat, C.E. (2009). Organizational link-
ages for surviving technological change: complementary
assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organiza-
tion Science, 20, pp. 718–739.
*Teulier, R. and Rouleau, L. (2013). Middle managers’
sensemaking and interorganizational change initiation:
translation spaces and editing practices. Journal of Change
Management, 13, pp. 308–337.
*Thomas, L. and Ambrosini, V. (2015). Materializing strat-
egy: the role of comprehensiveness and management con-
trols in strategy formation in volatile environments. British
Journal of Management, 26, S105–S124.
Thomas, J. and Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic
synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews.
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, pp. 1471–2288.
*Thomas, R. and Linstead, A. (2002). Losing the plot? Mid-
dle managers and identity. Organization, 9, pp. 71–93.
*Tippmann, E., Sharkey Scott, P. and Mangematin, V. (2014).
Stimulating knowledge search routines and architecture
competences: the role of organizational context and middle
management. Long Range Planning, 47, pp. 206–223.
Vaara, E. and Whittington, R. (2012). Strategy-as-practice:
taking social practices seriously. Academy of Management
Annals, 6, pp. 285–336.

C 2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
G. Radaelli and L. Sitton-Kent
*Valentino, C.L. and Brunelle, F.W. (2004). The role of mid-
dle managers in the transmission and integration of or-
ganizational culture. Journal of Healthcare Management,
49, 393.
Volberda, H.W., Foss, N.J. and Lyles, M.A. (2010).
Perspective-absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity:
how to realize its potential in the organization field. Orga-
nization Science, 21, pp. 931–951.
Von Nordenflycht, A. (2010). What is a professional ser-
vice firm? Toward a theory and taxonomy of knowledge-
intensive firms. Academy of Management Review, 35,
pp. 155–174.
Wæraas, A. and Sataøen, H.L. (2014). Trapped in con-
formity? Translating reputation management into prac-
tice. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30, pp. 242–
253.
*Waring, J.J. and Bishop, S. (2010). Lean healthcare:
rhetoric, ritual and resistance. Social Science & Medicine,
71, pp. 1332–1340.
*Westley, F.R. (1990). Middle managers and strategy: mi-
crodynamics of inclusion. Strategic Management Journal,
11, pp. 337–351.
Westphal, J.D., Gulati, R. and Shortell, S.M. (1997). Cus-
tomization or conformity? An institutional and network
perspective on the content and consequences of TQM
adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, pp. 366–
394
*Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T. and Floyd, S.W. (2008). The
middle management perspective on strategy process: con-
tributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Man-
agement, 34, pp. 1190–1221.
Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job:
revisioning employees as active crafters of their work.
Academy of Management Review, 26, pp. 179–201.
*Yang, J., Zhang, Z.X. and Tsui, A.S. (2010). Middle man-
ager leadership and frontline employee performance: by-
pass, cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of Man-
agement Studies, 47, pp. 654–678.
*Yip, F.W., Priem, R.L. and Cycyota, C.S. (2001). The per-
formance effects of human resource managers’ and other
middle managers’ involvement in strategy making under
different business-level strategies: the case in Hong Kong.
International Journal of Human Resource Management,
12, pp. 1325–1346.
Zilber, T.B. (2006). The work of the symbolic in institutional
processes: translations of rational myths in Israeli high
tech. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 281–303.
*Zoller, H.M. and Fairhurst, G.T. (2007). Resistance leader-
ship: the overlooked potential in critical organization and
leadership studies. Human Relations, 60, pp. 1331–1360.
Copyright of International Journal of Management Reviews is the property of Wiley-
Blackwell 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.