1
The travel of organization
Göran Ahrne and Nils Brunsson
Draft version Dec 2011. Comments welcome!
In the contemporary world there are more interaction and communication among people at
great distances than ever before. Interaction and communication both reinforce and are
reinforced by strong global similarities. It is indeed increasingly difficult to find differences in
appearance and life at various places – even extremely long air travels lead to cities that are
amazingly similar to each other. There is an increasing number of categories that are used
worldwide. For example, there are states, firms and unions almost everywhere and they tend
to nurture similar ideas and behave in similar ways. Their similarity makes it possible to
differentiate among them by global status orders: there are world champions in sports or
among universities, for instance. Organizations far apart tend to introduce similar structures
and procedures. An increasing number of organizations depend more and more on the
coordination of their activities with organizations in other parts of the world than
organizations in the local community.
These characteristics of the contemporary world are easily observable. The processes that lead
to these effects are more difficult to observe and sometimes they even remain unnoticed. It is
popular to range them under the general concept of globalization but such a ranging under one
concept risks hiding significant differences. Globalization is far from a unitary process that
shapes everything in its way in the same form. There are different roads to a globalized world
and the roads are more or less visible and have different impacts on the outcomes. Ideas have
been described as travelling (Czarniawska-Joerges and Joerges 1996), but so do organizations
and organization. In this chapter we describe three forms of organized globalization: the travel
of formal organizations, partial organization and meta-organizations. We compare them to
2
each other as well as to globalization through the travel of ideas in terms of flexibility,
visibility and their global impact.
The liability of foreignness
One pertinent issue in globalization processes is whether something is perceived as global or
local. Although an external observer may categorize an innovation in a local context as
emanating from the outside, it is not sure that people within that context draw the same
conclusion. They may think that it was invented within the local community, organization or
even by themselves. It may even become institutionalized: people take it for granted rather
than thinking about its origin and how it could be different.
Whether an innovation is classified as foreign or local has implications for how it is
evaluated. In some contexts and under some circumstances foreignness constitutes a negative
value while local innovations have a higher prestige. An example would be the syndrome of
“not invented here” that has been argued to characterize some organizations. But more
generally, modern individuals and organizations are constructed as entities that are and should
be autonomous and special. They are expected to find their own ways of doing things rather
than imitating others, which makes importation of innovations somewhat problematic for their
identity. Modern states claim the same characteristics: they request and pretend sovereignty
and have actively propagated ideas of local similarities of their “nation”. (Krasner 1999;
Billig 1995)
In other cases it is the other way round. Individuals and organizations with little self-esteem
may find innovations suggested or tried elsewhere more prestigious than ideas suggested by
themselves or their own organization. In malfunctioning or new states citizens may prefer
administrative forms by foreign prestigious states rather than accepting those that have been
invented by their own representatives (Badie 2000, Westney 1987). The same goes for firms.
While Japan actively and explicitly imitated state structures and procedures from the West in
the 19th century, firms in the West tried to imitate “Japanese management” during the
Japanese business success of the 1980ies (Boyer et al 1998).
3
The issue of whether something is perceived as foreign or not highlights the importance of
how travels of ideas or organizations happen in the local community; how and to what extent
local organizations are involved and whether they are threatened or empowered. ??
Travel of ideas
One process of globalization is the spread of ideas from one place to another. The spread of
ideas among organizations is a well-studied phenomenon, not least in the tradition of
institutional analysis. One example is the spread of various ideas about how to manage
organizations (Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall 2002, Rvik 2007). Such ideas may slowly
diffuse in networks of organizations or organizational fields by organizations imitating each
other (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). When there exist global networks and fields they may
produce much diffusion of ideas. But the spread of ideas does not presuppose contact or
knowledge among organizations. In modern societies various mass media covering events far
from home are the main source of foreign ideas. New and old ideas fly easily to all corners of
the world. Or there are mediating organizations or people who fly: For example, management
ideas can be spread by management consultants or gurus who like modern St Pauls travel
from one organization to another preaching the gospel. But the basic notion in this tradition is
that ideas travel but organizations stay at home.
As long as ideas are just ideas - perceptions and communications of what there are and can be
or what can be done - they are highly flexible. In order for them to affect organizational
practice they have to be translated into a local context (Czarniawska-Joerges and Joerges
1996, Sahlin-Andersson 1996) and in that process their origin or similarity with their origin
may become highly ambiguous. A propagator of an idea has considerable leeway in choosing
to present it as related to ideas in distant places or firmly rooted in or even invented in the
local context. In fact, and as all scholars know, it is not a trivial task to determine if or to what
extent one’s ideas are invented by oneself or by someone else. For example, for external
observers it is clear that public sector administrative reforms have been strikingly similar in
many countries during the 80ies and 90ies; observers have even given them the common
name of New Public Management (Hood 1995). But at least in the Swedish debate, reformers
have extremely seldom presented their ideas as originating from other countries. And it is
conceivable that they were in fact local inventions in each country (Brunsson 2000). The
4
flexibility of ideas makes them difficult to criticize on the ground that they are foreign or
local.
The travel of ideas is without doubt an important source of globalization and has huge
consequences for organizations, but their globalization does not only happen through the
travel of ideas among them but also through their own travels. The travel of organizations,
however, is another kind of journey.
Travel of organizations
Much earlier globalization happened by the travel of organizations. States were conquering
other states or colonizing areas with more or less of previous state organization. These
processes had significant consequences for the building of similarities, coordination and
communication among distant places, sometimes very distant.
Contemporary globalization is to a considerable extent driven by multinational corporations
that establish subsidiaries or buy existing firms far from their home base. Some multinational
corporations have become symbols of a rapid globalization. For example, McDonald’s and
IKEA have spread their businesses to many corners of the world in a rather short period of
time and they both have a high visibility. Both McDonald’s and IKEA are examples of
companies with innovative and clear concepts of what products to sell and how to sell them.
They are to some extent associated with new lifestyles and they have been seen as something
new in the local contexts. Although both and IKEA have encountered resistance and have
had somewhat to adjust to local practices (Ahrne and Papakostas 2002, Watson 1997), the
various establishments are surprisingly similar all over the world. Unlike conquering states
they do not preclude competition from other organizations, but the McDonalds restaurant
becomes a sort of foreign enclaves in various local contexts all over the world.
Companies’ international expansion is not a process without difficulties, however. One
problem that companies may meet is what has been termed “the liability of foreignness”
(Zaheer 2002). The concept sums up the many disadvantages that companies may be
confronted with when they try to establish themselves in a new business environment. These
disadvantages can be described as structural costs such as a lack of networks and linkages to
5
important local actors as well as poorer access to local information. There are also
“institutional costs” in the form of legitimacy and acceptance of the foreign firm. In the
research about the liability of foreignness a great variation in these factors has been found and
it can be concluded that foreignness in some cases may be an advantage (Nachum 2003). Yet
the liability of foreignness is still recognized as an issue that has to be addressed and how
travelling firms or states are perceived in the local context is always of importance for
understanding globalization processes.
Like all organizations firms are decided orders (Luhmann 2000, March and Simon 1958) that
have access to the organizational elements of membership, hierarchy, rules, monitoring and
sanctions (Ahrne and Brunsson 2011). Multinational corporations such as McDonalds
introduce their own version of an organizational, decided order into a local context. The
central hierarchical top of the organization makes many significant decisions for what the
local units shall do. It decides to use much of the same rules in their foreign restaurants as
they do at home. They decide to monitor the employees in the same way and they use the
same collection of sanctions (Ritzer 1993).
When foreign firms organize in conflict with local values and norms they may be seen as
unwelcome intrusions into the order at home. And their character of decided orders make
them easy victims of objections and protests. When organizational structures and procedures
are decided or at least perceived as decided, it becomes obvious that the order could be
different –the firms could decide to adapt their rules, monitoring and sanctions to local values
and norms. So objections are valid. And there are specific people responsible for having made
the wrong decisions, so that there is someone to whom one can direct one’s objections. And in
fact, McDonalds is an example of a foreign firm that has met objections and even street
protests (Smart 1999).
Such effects make it tempting to expand in less visible ways than McDonalds and IKEA have
done, by letting acquired local companies maintain their original names and brands, as
Electrolux and Unilever have done (Jones 2005). In a local context such a process of
globalization may remain unnoticed except for insiders such as the employees of the
company. Yet it is a process of organizational travel and if the new conditions are revealed it
may also arouse similar reactions.
6
Compared to ideas organizations are not as free-floating and flexible as ideas. Their origin is
clearer and more difficult to hide. Organizations cannot be translated and edited without
asking for permission. It is more useful to mobilize protests against an organization than an
idea. Decisions may be scrutinized and those who protest may suggest alternative solutions.
Travelling organizations always have a connection to their roots and their origin and history is
in principle well known. Their records may be investigated. Their foreignness is more
obvious. Thus we can expect travels of organizations to be slower and less frequent than
travels of ideas.
Multi-national corporations are not the only examples of contemporary organized
globalization. There are other ways of spreading organization globally and other organizations
involved. Instead of expanding a formal organization, organizations decide on one or a few
organizational elements.
Partial organization
Organization does not have to be confined to formal organizations, such as states or firms. It
is possible and common to use one or a few of organizational elements at a time in order to try
to organize people or organizations. Even though these elements are not used together with all
the other elements they have all the characteristics of organization. They are decided among
several options, they are related to people who are responsible for the decisions, and they are
liable to contest (Ahrne and Brunsson 2011).
One example is global standards, a kind of rules concerning such things as measures, products
or organizational structures and procedures. Many of such standards are set by international
standard organizations such as ISO, ETSI or CEN. Unlike a multi-national corporation setting
rules for its subsidiaries, standardization organizations do not have the authority to set binding
rules for anyone. On the other hand their standards reach out far beyond a single formal
organization. International standards have a huge impact when it comes to creating worldwide
similarities of measurement procedures, industrial products and organizations. Many of these
similarities are essential for achieving coordination over long distances.
Standards are sometimes complemented and reinforced by other organization elements. There
may be various monitoring activities that shall check whether standards are complied with or
7
not. And when they are, “certifications” or “accreditations” may be given to the standard
follower, which can be interpreted as a kind of positive sanction. For example, companies can
let others inspect their quality or environment work and become certified ISO 9000 or ISO 14
000 adopters. States are observed by Human Rights Watch whether they comply with
standards for human rights or not, and if not they are publicly criticized. Status can be
transferred by various kinds of awards and prizes. And the combination of standards and
monitoring sometimes creates global status orders, as is the case with various global ranking
systems.
By choosing to comply to organizational elements with a global reach, a local organization
can create or reinforce a global identity. By complying with a global standard for environment
protection a company can demonstrate that it belongs to the category of environment aware
firms, a category known all over the world. By accepting being ranked in the category of a
business school, a school can pose as belonging to this global identity.
On the other hand, local organizations that do not want to be standardized can defend their
local particularities against international standards in at least three ways. Large corporations
in many industries spend much effort at influencing standard decisions in order to get
standards that fit to the individual corporation’s own local needs, production processes or
product development plans. Second, they may participate in standardization processes with
the purpose of stopping any decisions on international standards in the relevant realm. And,
third, they may refuse to comply with a standard they do not like. This is not to say that they
always succeed. In many cases, they have to comply with product standards in their own
products in order to coordinate their own production with that of other firms or with
organizations standards (such as ISO’s standard 9000) in order to be considered a respectable
or at least acceptable partner by foreign organizations.
For people and organizations that are not directly involved in international standard setting,
some international standards may go largely unnoticed. Consumers of mobile phones may not
reflect on the fact that most of its components are determined by international standards, even
if the phone is produced in their home country. In other cases the foreignness of international
standards and any ensuing monitoring and sanction activities is observed as well as their
effects on local life. And as elements of organization they can stimulate and direct objections.
But compared to the same elements in a formal organization it is less clear who shall be
8
blamed. Standards need two decisions to be complied with – the decision to set a certain
standard and the decision by an individual organization to comply with the standard. In this
way responsibility is diluted by being shared between setter and adopter. And in fact, there
tends to be less of institutionalized structures and procedures for complaint about standards
than for binding rules in organizations.
The same responsibility dilution and its effects arises for those monitoring and sanction
activities that are partly decided by the organization that is monitored or sanctioned, for
example those that seek a certification. And even those who are given a prize they have not
applied for may be seen as partly responsible because they are seen as able to decide to refuse
accepting it.
Concluding, when globalization is initiated by organizational elements outside one formal
organization, foreignness tends to become somewhat less visible and somewhat more difficult
to object to than when formal organizations expand over the globe. They do not constitute
such a brutal a reminder of global similarities, connections and interdependencies as states or
multinational firms invading local contexts with alien practices.
But in comparison with ideas without organization there are still significant differences.
Foreign organizational elements tend to be stronger reminders of global connections than the
travel of ideas. It is more difficult to hide the origin of partial organization for those who are
really interested. There are not only local but also foreign decision-makers to hold
responsible. And organizational elements are less flexible: There is less room for local
translation, especially when standards are combined with monitoring and sanctions. Someone
has decided about these elements, and this party as well as others interested in the effects. For
example, both the standard-setter and other standard compliers are interested in how
organizations referring to the standard actually comply with it.
However, there is a second form of relatively soft global organization, international metaorganizations, to which we now turn.
Meta-organizations
9
Most partial organization is directed towards formal organizations – it is such entities that are
expected to comply with standards and that are monitored and sanctioned. When yet two other
organizational elements, membership and hierarchy, are added to the other three elements we
get a meta-organization, an organization with other organizations as its members. Well-known
meta-organizations such as the United Nations (EU), the Fédération Internationale de Football
Association (FIFA) and International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) are essential parts and
drivers of globalization, but so are also thousands of less well-known international metaorganizations such as the International Association of Universities (IAU), International
Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) or United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG)
(Ahrne and Brunsson 2008).
Meta-organizations are associations, which means that membership is voluntary and that all
members are considered equals (Warren 2001). The members of meta-organizations,
however, do not have to be associations, but just as well other kinds of organizations such as
states or firms. Or the members may be other meta-organizations: Often organizations form a
national meta-organization which then becomes a member of an international one. The
members of meta-organizations are still autonomous organizations and they have the
possibility to leave the organization if they would want to. A meta-organization cannot decide
to close down one of its members or to move it.
Membership in an international meta-organization offers organizations unique opportunities
to take part in a process of globalization without expanding their own business or moving
their boundaries. In contrast to the travel of organizations, the formation of a metaorganization does not mean that local organizations move to new places. As members of
meta-organizations local organizations remain local and keep their local identity, at the same
time as they become part of an expanding organization with a global reach.
Sometimes organizations form or join a meta-organization in order to avoid and seek
protection from local organizers, such as national governments. In other cases they seek
protection from partial organization with a global reach. For example, meta-organizations can
choose their own standards and they do not to the same extent have to be exposed to attempts
from other less understanding organizations to set rules for them. Also, membership in a
meta-organization provides an opportunity to influence others. A member can use its
membership to influence the decisions of the meta-organization and thus indirectly the
practices of other members. For organizations that have little chance to expand or move meta-
10
organizations offer a means for getting a global reach. For most contemporary states
conquering other states is not an option, but states have thousands of meta-organizations to
join. Empires are not popular any longer and some empires have been turned into metaorganizations, as is the case with the British empire (now the Commonwealth of Nations) or
the Soviet empire (now the Commonwealth of Independent States – CIS).
Meta-organizations contribute to processes of globalization in other ways as well. Within their
respective fields many meta-organizations are active in facilitating interaction and
communication among their members, as do for instance the Universal Postal Union (UPI)
since 1874 as well as Internet Society (ISOC) since 1992.
Also, some meta-organizations contribute to global status orders by being restrictive in what
members they accept: even if an organization clearly belongs to the relevant category it may
not be good enough to be accepted as a member. Other meta-organizations invest much work
in providing global status orders, by distributing awards to successful members (Golden Eggs
and the like) or, as in sports, by arranging world championships in order to tell who of their
members or their members’ members are the best.
Local or foreign
For international meta-organizations the balance between the foreign and the local is
fundamental. The tension between these two levels is built into the organization itself: the
meta-organization represents the global aspect and the members the local one. The tension
now partly becomes one of competition among organizations but within the framework of one
organization. Because both the members and the meta-organization are organizations they
compete with each other and have to strike a balance as to which organization is the most
important in various situations. Shall the international meta-organization that is foreign in all
local contexts be the one with greatest authority and visibility or that is emphasized or shall
the local member organizations be the important ones?
The very idea of meta-organizations is to constitute workable connections between the local
and the global. Members of meta-organizations need to appear as autonomous and
independent organizations in front of their own members or customers in the local
community, who expect them to be able to make their own decisions. Thus the authority of a
meta-organization vis-à-vis its members has to be limited in comparison with a complete
organization with individual members, such as a multinational firm. Even if a meta-
11
organization has the right to use all organizational elements that are expected from complete
organizations they may not be able to use them. In order to balance between the authority of
the members and the one of the meta-organization it is common that members have veto
rights or that qualified majorities are required for making decisions. Members who want to
block decisions on certain rules, monitoring or sanctions are likely to succeed. Therefore,
meta-organizations tend to avoid binding decisions letting the members themselves decide
whether they shall comply or not. Rules are often formulated as standards, monitoring is
voluntary and negative sanctions are avoided.
So the influence of a meta-organization on specific members is in many ways restricted in
comparison with what is usual in individual based organizations. The local order is under less
threat than in the case when states and multinational corporations move. But over time the
members influence each other in order to be able better to interact with each other. The
similarities in what they do and how they do things tend to increase, thus stripping member
organizations of some of their local characteristics.
Meta-organizations are reinforced by the threat of alternative forms of organization. In order
to defend themselves organizations have to refer to the rules, monitoring etc that the metaorganization now provides and that makes other forms of organization unnecessary. And as a
member it is more difficult to openly reject even a voluntary organizational element decided
by one’s meta-organization than a voluntary element that is not connected to membership but
decided by parties seen as wholly external. Yet they cannot translate and use the rules of the
meta-organization at their own will without expecting reactions from the other members. If an
organization has made too far-reaching interpretations of their own, it may even be excluded
from the meta-organization, as has, for instance, happened in the Liberal International and the
Socialist International.
On the other hand, if the members agree, a meta-organization may also be able in practice to
soften the organizational elements compared to a situation of external partial organization.
Organizations are highly capable to keep a difference between what they do and what they say
(Brunsson 2007). To some limit, their standards may be less restrictive, the monitoring may
be shallower and the sanctions less draconic in practice than they claim in relation to a sceptic
audience that had perhaps preferred truly external interventions.
12
At a certain point in time there are meta-organizations with very little authority and impact on
their members. They are a kind of clubs where other organizational elements than
membership are very rudimentary or non-existent. Maybe several of their members have
joined in order to block the organization to become important. Such meta-organizations
contribute little to globalization. Other meta-organizations have a large impact; adapting their
members to the purpose and tasks of the meta-organization, most often by creating similarities
among them that facilitate coordination, communication or common forceful action. Such
meta-organizations are significant contributors to globalization. In some cases they may even
over time take on some characteristics of individual-based organizations (which is the case of
the contemporary EU) or even wholly turn into an individual-based organization (as the US
did over a hundred year period).
Meta-organizations also vary in the extent to which they affect the identity of their members.
Most meta-organizations build on similarity among the members: they recruit members that
are similar in some aspect. And this similarity is not changed by the membership: in most
meta-organizations there is no division of labour among the members and the core activities
of the members remain intact; what changes is how they do things. An organization that
becomes a member of a meta-organization maintains its old, local identity but it adds a new
global one as well. One can say that the member adds a last name to its original first one. The
last name is the name of the meta-organization that indicates its relationship and strong
affinity with a wider world and the other members.
In comparison with partial organization a membership in a meta-organization gives a stronger
new identity. Adding membership to other elements such as rules or monitoring increases the
trustworthiness of the new identity, the last name, since it implies that the organization has
been recognized by other similar organizations as an equal It becomes easier to convince
others about a certain identity and may even bring about a higher status. For example, to
ensure or stabilize an identity as a liberal party, membership in the Liberal International helps.
Having access to two names gives the member opportunities to manipulate how it is looked
upon in the local community. If an organization believes that foreign connections would cause
any suspicions or protests, it can use only its first name in relations with its members,
customers or other external parties. Then their membership and new last name does not have
to generate much attention and their new global connections may remain almost unnoticed. .
13
If, on the other hand, the member wants to demonstrate its foreign connections, it can
emphasize its new last name.
How a membership in a global meta-organization is perceived in a local community also
depends on the identity of the meta-organization and what kind of interests it represents.
Some meta-organizations avoid the label of organization, presenting themselves as loose
networks for contacts among the participants; others present themselves in a similar way as
firms and states do, as forceful actors. The Commonwealth of Nations seems less powerful or
threatening than NATO. And no international meta-organization can completely conceal that
they are international.
Meta-organizations are important roads to globalization thanks to their unique way of
connecting the local with the global. And many meta-organizations may in the long run
become important global actors and develop into supra-territorial corridors of order linking
geographically distant organizations with each other and breaking up local orders.
Conclusions
In order to understand, analyze and explain globalization we believe that it is crucial to clearly
distinguish among different kinds of processes involved. In this paper we have described four
processes of globalization and their differences.
Two of them have raised much attention – the travel of ideas and the travel of complete
organizations. However, it seems unlikely that such processes alone would create as much
similarity as we actually can observe in the world today. They have weaknesses as
homogenizers, although different ones. Ideas can travel fast and their origin is not easily
observable. On the other hand ideas are flexible: those picking up the ideas may do it in their
own way and translate them as they wish, which reduces their homogenizing potential. For
the travels of complete organizations it is the other way around. Organizations are more inert
but have a higher ability to maintain their forms even in a foreign environment. And they are
more likely to encounter resistance.
14
The other two processes of globalization that we have discussed in this chapter, the use of
partial organization and the creation of meta-organizations can be regarded as somewhat
softer forms than the travel of complete organizations, which makes them more mobile. They
constitute combinations of foreignness and localness. Local organizations can choose to what
extent they relate to these kinds of organization. On the other hand, compared to ideas they
are less free-floating. And even though one may attempt to conceal it, it is difficult completely
to avoid noticing and presenting their foreign origin. They are less flexible.
An extreme degree of acceptance of ideas or organization is institutionalization. Over time
some ideas become taken for granted and the ensuing practices become institutionalized,
which means that the origin of them are forgotten or become irrelevant. One may speculate
that the possibility to adapt ideas to local needs and values facilitate such institutionalization.
The lesser flexibility of organizational elements does not, however, prevent them to become
institutionalized as well. Many international standards are no longer perceived as decisions
with options but are taken for granted in many local contexts (David 1986). Some aspects of
new technical products may even become almost immediately institutionalized – it becomes
taken for granted that a mobile phone should largely look and function the way it does. It is
more difficult to imagine how complete organizations, whether multinational firms or
international meta-organizations, could become taken for granted and their origin forgotten.
By distinguishing among the four kinds of globalization processes we can also discern their
interaction. They may compete but also reinforce each other. Organization facilitates the
travel of ideas. Multinational corporations are arenas in which ideas about innovations float
more freely than outside (Kogut and Zander 1993). And within meta-organizations people
with common interests have a chance to exchange ideas about the situation of their
organizations and what to do about it. Meta-organizations constitute a common structure for
the travel of ideas to all the members. They can be understood as global tracks for safer and
more predictable journeys of common ideas.
Moreover, there is an often less visible part of decisions of standard setting, monitoring and
sanctioning. That is the decision to whom the organizational element is directed. Organizers
make decisions on categories of people, organizations and situations to which their
organization element applies. When the categories are less visible than the organizational
element itself, they may draw less criticism and more easily become institutionalized. For
15
example, standards or rankings for business schools may be contested while the Anglo-Saxon
concept of business school may become a taken- for granted label for various schools in
different contexts and with different traditions and orientations. There may be criticisms of
whether ISO’s standard 9000 in fact improves quality while the relevance and definition of
quality may remain uncontested.
In the same way, meta-organizations by defining who can be a member also create or
reinforce certain categories, thereby spreading the same identities all over the world. Metaorganizations can also provide more detailed definitions of their membership category, which
many can refer to.
So we believe that it is important to observe that the similarities we see in the contemporary
world are to a large extent the results of organization, but not primarily of organization in the
traditional sense of formal organizations with individuals as their members, such as
multinational corporations. Without partial organization and meta-organizations the world
would be much less homogeneous than it is today. And it would be much more difficult to
interact and communicate. The increase in similarities, interaction and communication the last
fifty years has followed a strong increase in both partial organization and meta-organizations.
For example, the International Standards Organization, which is just one of several
international standardization bodies, has produced 18 500 standards since its inception in
1947. Almost all the more than 10 000 international meta-organizations that exist today were
founded during the last fifty years and about a fourth of them during the last decade. The ongoing expansion of these forms for globalization is likely to make the world even more
homogenous and connected in the future.
.
References:
Ahrne, G. & Papakostas, A. (2002) Organisationer, samhälle och globalisering. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Ahrne, G. & Brunsson, N. (2008) Meta-organizations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Ahrne, G. & Brunsson, N. (2011) Organization outside organizations: the significance of
partial organization. Organization, 18, 83–104.
16
Badie, B. (2000) The imported state: the westernization of the political order. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Billig, M. (1995) Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.
Boyer, R., Charrion, E., Jurgens, U. & Tolliday, S. (1998) Between imitation and innovation:
the transfer and hybridization of productive models in the international automobile industry.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brunsson, N. (2000) Standadrization and Uniformity in Brunsson, N. & Jacobsson, B. (eds,)
A World of Standards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brunsson, N. (2007) Organized Hypocrisy in Brunsson, N. The Consequences of DecisionMaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. and Joerges, B. (1996) Travels of ideas. In Czarniawska Joerges, B.
& Sevón, G. (eds.) Translating organizational change. Berlin: de Gruyter.
David, P. A. (1986) Understanding the economics of QWERTY: the necessity of history. In
Parker W. N. (ed.) Economic History and the Modern Economist. London: Basil Blackwell.
DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
Hood, C. (1995) The New Public Management in the 1980s: variations on a theme.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 93-109.
Jones, G. (2005) Renewing Unilever. Transformation and tradition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Krasner, S. D. (1999) Sovereignty: organized hypocrisy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton university
Press.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U.: Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the
Multinational Corporation, Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), 1993.
Luhmann, N. (2000) Organisation und Entscheidung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
March, J. & Simon, H. (1958) Organizations. New York, N.Y.: Wiley.
Nachum, L. (2003) Liability of foreignness in global competition? Financial service affiliates
in the city of London. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1187-1208.
Ritzer, G. (1993) The McDonalidization of society. London: Pine Forge Press.
Rövik, K-A. (2007) Trender og translasjoner. Ideer som former det 21. århundrets
organisasjon. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Sahlin-Andersson, K. & Engwall, L. (eds.) (2002) The Expansion of Management Knowledge.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
17
Sahlin-Andersson, K. (1996) Imitating by editing success: The construction of organization
fields. In Czarniawska Joerges, B. & Sevón, G. (eds.) Translating organizational change.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Smart, B. (ed.) (1999) Resisting McDonaldization. London: Sage.
Warren, M. E. (2001) Democracy and association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Watson, J. L. (ed.) (1997) Golden arches east. McDonald’s in east Asia. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Westney, D. B. (1987) Imitation and innovation: the transfer of western organizational
patterns to Meij Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18