Description
The management field has witnessed the rise and fall of many managerial practices, including sensitivity training, quality circles, and reengineering.
A RHETORICAL THEORY OF DIFFUSION
SANDY EDWARD GREEN, JR.
University of Southern California
I use rhetorical theory to reconceptualize the diffusion of managerial practices. Spe-
cifically, I argue that the diffusion of a practice depends on the discursive justifica-
tions used to rationalize it. When such justifications are accepted and taken for
granted, a practice reaches a state of institutionalization. Furthermore, I propose that
changes in justifications and diffusion provide a basis for explaining institutional-
ization as both a process and a state. I then develop several propositions from this
model.
The management field has witnessed the rise
and fall of many managerial practices, includ-
ing sensitivity training, quality circles, and re-
engineering (Carson, Lanier, Carson, & Guidry,
2000; Eccles, Nohria, & Berkley, 1992). Most man-
agement innovations arrive and dissipate
quickly (Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999), while a
few thrive and diffuse broadly throughout the
business community. Although several theories
explain variation in the diffusion of managerial
practices (Abrahamson, 1991; O’Neill, Pouder, &
Buchholtz, 1998; Rogers, 1995), critics argue that
these explanations often emphasize realist con-
cerns at the expense of linguistic considerations
(Hirsch, 1986; Strang & Meyer, 1994). Therefore, in
this article I use neoinstitutional theory, be-
cause it emphasizes the role of language or dis-
course in the diffusion process (Strang & Meyer,
1994).
Proponents of the neoinstitutional perspective
view the spread of managerial practices as a
salient organizational act that must make sense
to decision makers and must satisfy the institu-
tional environment (Scott, 1995; Tolbert & Zucker,
1996). Managerial practices are accompanied by
legitimating managerial discourse, which ex-
plains how practices help managers rationally
pursue valued goals (Friedland & Alford, 1991;
Strang & Meyer, 1994). For example, the manage-
ment fashion variant of neoinstitutionalism
(Abrahamson, 1996; Abrahamson & Fairchild,
1999; Kieser, 1997) describes how managers use
discourse to communicate to organizational
stakeholders that the adoption of a given prac-
tice complies with norms of rationality and
norms of progress (Abrahamson, 1996; Abraham-
son & Fairchild, 1999). Thus, discourse shapes
decisions about the adoption and wider diffu-
sion of managerial practices (Abrahamson &
Fairchild, 1999; Strang & Meyer, 1994).
Although neoinstitutional theory includes a
role for discourse, two key problems remain.
First, it suggests a model of diffusion that is
inherently adaptivist (Hasselbladh & Kallinikos,
2000). It shifts rational adaptation from the need
to acquire resources in the technoeconomic en-
vironment to the need to conform normatively to
the social environment (Hasselbladh & Kallini-
kos, 2000; Hasselbladh & Theodoridis, 1997), and
it fails to explain why those needs exist or be-
come influential or why a particular structure
fulfills the need in question (Perrow, 1993). Sec-
ond, neoinstitutional theory focuses on how in-
stitutions constrain actors at the expense of ex-
plaining how actors create institutions (Barley &
Tolbert, 1997; Zucker, 1987). Culture and dis-
course restrict the opportunities and alterna-
tives available to actors, yet the ways in which
actors’ choices intentionally modify and shape
institutions are not fully explained (Barley &
Tolbert, 1997). The result is a view of discourse
and its relation to diffusion that is too passive
and oversocialized—a view that explains the
homogenization of the supraorganizational field
but ignores agency, deviance, or political adap-
tation (Friedland & Alford, 1991). This view fails
to explain the patterns of institutional arenas or
the conditions under which new institutional
forms develop or are deinstitutionalized (Fried-
I thank Jeffrey Ford and three anonymous reviewers for
their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. I
also thank Craig Keys, Thomas Cummings, Nitin Nohria, Jay
Lorsch, Brian Joseph, Benjamin Berger, Paul Adler, and Ian
Mitroff. All remaining errors and omissions are entirely my
own.
? Academy of Management Review
2004, Vol. 29, No. 4, 653–669.
653
land & Alford, 1991; Greenwood, Suddaby, &
Hinings, 2002; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991).
The cause and solution to these problems may
rest with the ways in which discourse and its
relationship to social action are conceptualized
(Alvesson & Ka¨ rreman, 2000; Astley & Zammuto,
1992; Gergen & Thatchenkery, 1996). Rhetorical
theory has been underutilized in organizational
studies and, thus, may contribute to this field of
inquiry. The central purpose of this article is to
introduce rhetorical theory into the study of dif-
fusion and demonstrate its utility for reconcep-
tualizing discourse and social action. Rhetoric is
a type of instrumental discourse used to per-
suade audiences, reach reliable judgments or
decisions, and coordinate social action (Bizzell &
Herzberg, 1990; Gill & Whedbee, 1997; Herrick,
2001). Rhetorical theory emphasizes how social
actors’ cognitive limits enable language to
shape both the means and ends of their actions
(Bizzell & Herzberg, 1990; Guthrie, 1993; Kerferd,
1993; Richards, 1965). Through rhetoric, actors
produce and assign meaning, constructing both
their identities and the world (Billig, 1996; Booth,
1974; Quinn, 1996).
A rhetorical perspective suggests that manag-
ers play an active role in the diffusion process,
because what managers say and how they say it
matter a great deal (Eccles et al., 1992; Elsbach,
1994; Pfeffer, 1981). This perspective reconceptu-
alizes diffusion as a product of rhetoric, because
rhetoric can influence the motives driving firms
to adopt innovations and shape the social struc-
ture through which those practices diffuse. Con-
ceptualizing diffusion as a rhetorical process
gives support to ideas held by management
scholars who conceptualize the manager as
rhetor (Eccles et al., 1992). This view emphasizes
the linguistic origins of rationality and institu-
tions. To rationalize is to give discursive reasons
for actions; to institutionalize is to accept and
take these reasons for granted. This makes lan-
guage central to understanding variations in
the diffusion and institutionalization of mana-
gerial practices and suggests a more active con-
ceptualization of discourse and social action.
In this article I first describe the basic as-
sumptions underlying a rhetorical perspective
and then develop a rhetorical theory of diffu-
sion. My central argument is that the type and
sequence of discursive justifications determine
the speed and extent of diffusion that a practice
achieves and, ultimately, shape the degree of
taken-for-grantedness that the practice attains.
Finally, I discuss the implications of this per-
spective for theory and research.
A RHETORICAL THEORY OF DIFFUSION
In this section I develop a rhetorical theory of
diffusion. I first describe the rhetorical perspec-
tive and then reconceptualize diffusion as a
product of rhetoric. Specifically, discursive jus-
tifications establish the appropriateness and ra-
tionality of adoption and, ultimately, its degree
of taken-for-grantedness. I use this rhetorical
conception of diffusion to develop a proposition
that differentiates the breadth of diffusion from
the degree of institutionalization. Finally, I elab-
orate on what this means for our understanding
of institutions, institutionalization, and institu-
tional change.
A Rhetorical Perspective
The linguistic turn in organizational studies
emphasizes the vital role of language in under-
standing organizations (Alvesson & Ka¨ rreman,
2000; Dandridge, Mitroff, & Joyce, 1980; Ford &
Ford, 1995; Pondy & Mitroff, 1979; Zald, 1996).
Previous research has shown that managers are
essentially discursive beings, spending two-
thirds to three-fourths of their time engaged in
verbal activity (Mintzberg, 1973). Managers use
this constant verbal activity to gather informa-
tion, develop shared understandings of the
world, and persuade individuals to contribute to
collective purposes, such as the adoption and
implementation of new practices. Managers
hear and use all kinds of arguments to elicit
action and describe the world. However, most
managers are unaware of the ways in which
their language influences social action (Eccles
et al., 1992).
Several theories, ranging fromdiscourse anal-
ysis (van Dijk, 1997; Fairclough, 1992; Grant,
Keenoy, & Oswick, 1998) to social construction
(Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Gergen & Thatchen-
kery, 1996; Weick, 1972), address the relationship
of language to social action. Recently, organiza-
tional researchers have increased their interest
in rhetorical theory as an additional lens
through which to understand organizational ac-
tions and phenomena (Abrahamson, 1997; Abra-
hamson & Fairchild, 1999; Barley & Kunda, 1992;
654 October Academy of Management Review
Eccles et al., 1992; Gill & Whedbee, 1997; Huff,
1983; Watson, 1995; Zbaracki, 1998).
Although rhetorical theory is broad and com-
plex, the rhetorical perspective I use here incor-
porates the strong compatibilist perspective, as
well as many of its underlying assumptions and
goals (O’Neill, 1997). In the compatibilist per-
spective, reason and rhetoric are compatible
and inextricably linked, because reason en-
compasses both the logic of demonstrative
argument—premises that are self-evidently
true—and the rhetoric of dialectical argument—
premises based on endoxa or opinions that are
generally accepted (O’Neill, 1997). For the strong
compatibilist, the inseparability of rhetoric and
reason undermines traditional notions of objec-
tive truth and atomistic instrumental ration-
ality—not to embrace relativism or irrationalism
but to advocate an embedded and intersubjec-
tive rationality (McCloskey, 1998; O’Neill, 1997;
Quinn, 1996).
The Role of Rhetoric in Diffusion
A rhetorical perspective that denies a distinc-
tion between reason and rhetoric may have pro-
found implications for theories of diffusion. Most
models of diffusion suggest that adoption of
new practices and structures is driven by the
intrinsic merits of the innovation and/or the
characteristics of potential adopters (King & Ku-
gler, 2000; Rogers, 1995; Strang & Macy, 2001).
These perspectives underemphasize the role of
rhetoric in the diffusion process (Abrahamson &
Fairchild, 1999; Hirsch, 1986; King & Kugler, 2000;
Strang & Meyer, 1994). Actors are seen as adopt-
ing new practices and structures because they
are effective (Strang & Macy, 2001). Yet such
views rest on the assumption that new practices
do not actually have to be effective—actors only
have to believe they are beneficial (Krackhardt,
2001; Strang & Macy, 2001). A rhetorical view
asserts that these beliefs do not emerge within a
social vacuum; they are rhetorically shaped and
promoted by organizational actors (King & Ku-
gler, 2000; Zbaracki, 1998). Thus, managers
championing the adoption of new practices pro-
vide discursive justifications that rationalize
and legitimize the new practices’ adoption (King
& Kugler, 2000; Strang & Meyer, 1994; Tolbert &
Zucker, 1996). Moreover, newpractices and struc-
tures may only be efficient and effective when
supporting rhetoric rationalizes the usefulness
of their adoption (Hirsch, 1986).
From a rhetorical perspective, such rationality
is influenced by our ability to give reasons and,
thus, link claims with justifications. Specifically,
managers, in conversation with themselves and
others, rationalize the adoption of managerial
practices. This formulation resonates with argu-
ments that rationality is discursively produced
(Garfinkel, 1967; Gergen, 1994; Gergen & Thatch-
enkery, 1996; Habermas, 1984; Quinn, 1996; Rorty,
1980; Wittgenstein, 1963). To be rational is to
make persuasive sense. Accordingly, the more
persuasive the discursive reasons supporting a
managerial practice, the more rational its adop-
tion. Moreover, as these reasons become more
accepted and taken for granted, managerial
practices become more institutionalized.
Justifying Diffusion and the Production of
Taken-for-Grantedness
The main concern in a rhetorical theory of
diffusion is how variation in discursive reasons
persuades actors to adopt new practices and
how, over time, the persuasiveness of these jus-
tifications shapes the way practices become
taken for granted. This emphasizes the impor-
tance of taken-for-grantedness as a direct prod-
uct of persuasiveness. Taken-for-grantedness is
a phenomenological concept with many differ-
ent connotations (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Jep-
person, 1991; Zucker, 1991). Here, it means “to
accept until further notice our knowledge of cer-
tain states of affairs as unquestionably plausi-
ble” (Schutz, 1962: 326). Rhetorical theory sug-
gests that as the persuasiveness of discourse
increases, the production of taken-for-granted-
ness increases.
Before a managerial practice can become
takenfor granted, it must first makesense. Sense-
making involves justifying a practice within an
argumentative or linguistic context (Bakhtin,
1981; Billig, 1996; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca,
1969). Justifications establish appropriateness
and rationality (Lamertz & Baum, 1998); they le-
gitimate and connect a practice to nature and
reason (Douglas, 1986). Justifications are ac-
tively developed from endoxa, or that which is
commonly believed and taken for granted (Aris-
totle, 1991; Herrick, 2001). Specifically, a man-
ager hoping to justify the adoption of a new
practice scans the commonly held assumptions
2004 655 Green
or “taken-for-granteds” of his or her audience to
produce justifications that support his or her
claim about the practice. These justifications
are then used by managers to shape the produc-
tion of that which will be taken for granted in
the future. This rhetorical framework provides a
view of how managers actively shape yet are
simultaneously influenced by their symbolic
environments.
Only individuals make justifications; how-
ever, we can conceptualize justifications as rep-
resenting the dominant concerns of individuals
in firms, classes, or industries. Thus, an industry
might make a justification through individuals’
expression of a dominant or widely held view.
We might measure changes in justifications in a
group of managers within a firm, or in a group of
managers across firms. Examples of where we
might observe these justifications are such ex-
ternal sources as the business press or such
internal sources as prior adopters’ presentations
to analysts, shareholder meetings, and so forth
(King & Kugler, 2000; Strang & Soule, 1998).
The persuasiveness of a justification shapes
how easily and effectively people make sense of
it and, thus, how rapidly the new management
practice becomes accepted or taken for granted.
From a rhetorical perspective, evidence of ac-
ceptance is the lack of a need to linguistically
support the practice. Consequently, we can ex-
pect an increase in supportive justifications to
occur at the beginning of a managerial prac-
tice’s diffusion and prior to that practice’s
achieving taken-for-granted status. As the
practice becomes more widely diffused and ac-
cepted, the frequency and amount of justifica-
tion should decrease. This increase in justifica-
tion and diffusion, followed by a decrease in
justification without a corresponding decrease
in diffusion, indicates a process through which
the taken-for-grantedness of a new practice
emerges.
Figure 1 shows the behavioral and linguistic
implications of a rhetorical theory of diffusion.
This model represents the diffusion of a “single
practice across a single community (a relation-
ally and culturally connected population)”
(Strang & Soule, 1998: 279). The x-axis represents
time, while the first (left) y-axis signifies the
percentage of firms within a population that
have adopted a managerial practice and the
second (right) y-axis shows the amount of justi-
fication supporting a managerial practice. The
diffusion line represents the actual incidence of
behavioral adoption of a managerial practice
and is read against the first y-axis. The justifi-
cation line represents the occurrences of lin-
guistic arguments supporting the adoption of
the practice and is read against the second y-
axis.
Figure 1 shows that an increase in diffusion
combined with a decrease in justifications ap-
proximates an increase in the level of
taken-for-grantedness. This suggests that the
more compelling and convincing a justification
supporting a managerial practice is, the less the
justification needs to be repeated or sustained
in order to maintain the practice.
FIGURE 1
A Rhetorical Theory of Diffusion
656 October Academy of Management Review
Critical examination of the relationship of
justifications and diffusion provides a clearer
understanding of institutionalization as both a
process and a state. Specifically, institutional-
ization may take place at many levels (e.g., the
individual organizational level or the aggregate
level of the organizational field). Over a given
period of time, changes in the breadth of diffu-
sion or number of justifications represent the
process by which a pattern of action becomes
taken for granted or institutionalized. Con-
versely, at any point in time, the breadth of
diffusion relative to the number of justifications
represents the state or degree of taken-for-
grantedness or institutionalization. For in-
stance, the highest degree of institutionalization
is an ideal state of perfect taken-for-granted-
ness. This reflects 100 percent diffusion of the
practice, with no discursive justifications. Con-
necting these ideas suggests the following
proposition.
Proposition 1: The degree of taken-for-
grantedness of a managerial practice
will be positively related to its
breadth of diffusion and negatively
related to the number of justifications
supporting it.
A Rhetorical View of Diffusion and Our
Understanding of Institutions
Proposition 1 enables us to disentangle taken-
for-grantedness from diffusion and to develop a
clearer understanding of institutions, institu-
tionalization, and institutional change.
Institutions. Institutionalized practices are
those that have become infused with value be-
yond the technical requirements of the task at
hand(DiMaggio &Powell, 1983; Oliver, 1992; Selz-
nick, 1957). Proposition 1 suggests that in the
early stage of institutionalization, when adop-
tion and justifications are both increasing, jus-
tifications are actively legitimating and shap-
ing beliefs that the new practices solve
recurring practical problems (Berger & Luck-
mann, 1966; Homans, 1961; Schutz, 1962). This is
consistent with Suchman’s (1995) description of
pragmatic and moral legitimation as discursive
processes that tend to occur early in the institu-
tionalization process (Greenwood et al., 2002;
Suchman, 1995), as well as neoinstitutional ac-
counts that early adopters are initially driven by
technical/efficiency considerations (Strang &
Macy, 2001; Tolbert & Zucker, 1983; Westphal,
Gulati, & Shortell, 1997).
Over time, computational and attention limits
(Simon, 1945) require a reduction in the cognitive
resources attending to the practice; justifica-
tions decrease, and the practice’s value comes
to be taken for granted. This supports Such-
man’s (1995) idea that cognitive legitimacy rep-
resents a lack of discursive justification (Such-
man, 1995: 584–585), as well as neoinstitutional
formulations that suggest cognitive legitimacy
is produced in the later stages of institutional-
ization (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994; Greenwood et al.,
2002; Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). In short, in the early
process or stage of institutionalization, the prac-
tice is discursively asserted to have value and,
thus, taken-for-grantedness is low (Greenwood
et al., 2002; Suchman, 1995). In the later stages of
institutionalization, discourse justifying the
value of the practice decreases and taken-for-
grantedness is high (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994; Green-
wood et al., 2002; Jepperson, 1991; Suchman,
1995).
Within this framework, the state or degree of
institutionalization is equivalent to the degree
of taken-for-grantedness (see Figure 1). Scholars
note that many things can be taken for granted
and that taken-for-grantedness can assume sev-
eral different forms (Jepperson, 1991: 147–152).
However, institutionalization is a special type of
taken-for-grantedness, where the value of a
practice is presumed (Jepperson, 1991; Selznick,
1957). Specifically, decreases in justifications
may represent a practice that is taken for
granted because actors are unaware and have
forgotten why it adds value (Jepperson, 1991).
Alternatively, decreases in justifications may
represent a practice where actors unquestion-
ably accept the practice’s value because they
lack conscious alternatives (Jepperson, 1991). In
either case, justifications have woven a belief
about the practice’s value into the community’s
general web of belief (Quine & Ullian, 1978). The
practice appears appropriate and proper and,
thus, infused with value beyond its initial tech-
nical requirements.
Although a rhetorical theory of diffusion reso-
nates in many ways with neoinstitutional ac-
counts of diffusion, an important difference in-
volves the production of legitimacy and its role
in future adoption. Both neoinstitutional (DiMag-
gio & Powell, 1983; Tolbert & Zucker, 1983) and
2004 657 Green
rhetorical explanations propose that legitimacy
increases future adoption. But neoinstitutional
accounts assume a positive relationship be-
tween prior adoption and the production of le-
gitimacy (Greenwood et al., 2002; Haunschild &
Miner, 1997; March & Heath, 1994; Meyer &
Rowan, 1991; Tolbert & Zucker, 1996), whereas
rhetorical theory emphasizes how justifications
shape legitimacy.
Both formulations can explain the up-phase in
diffusion as either an increase in prior adoption
or the outcome of persuasive justifications, but
neoinstitutional accounts cannot explain why
faddish practices can suddenly develop a neg-
ative relationship between prior adoption and
legitimacy (Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999;
Kieser, 1997; Macy & Strang, 2001). This problem
may arise because neoinstitutional explana-
tions imply a perpetual dominance of norms of
conformity, where prior adoption always pro-
duces legitimacy. The management fashion lit-
erature qualifies this claim by suggesting that
sometimes norms of progress can dominate, cre-
ating a negative relationship between prior
adoption and legitimacy (Abrahamson, 1996;
Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999). Yet why one
norm dominates another is left unexplained
(Kieser, 1997).
A rhetorical theory of diffusion, however, sug-
gests prior adoption can be discursively inter-
preted in multiple ways. One manager may
justify a popular managerial technique as stan-
dard industry practice and, hence, worthy of the
firm’s adoption, whereas another may question
its utility by describing the practice as just an-
other “flavor of the month,” incapable of differ-
entiating the firm or increasing its competitive
capabilities. In short, a rhetorical view concep-
tualizes legitimacy as an active product of man-
agerial discourse, whereas many neoinstitu-
tional accounts conceive of legitimacy as a
product of prior adoption.
Institutionalization. Proposition 1 also im-
proves our understanding of institutionalization.
Neoinstitutionalists often proxy the cognitive
form of legitimacy—taken-for-grantedness
(Scott, 1995; Suchman, 1995)—with previous
adoption (Davis, 1991; Davis & Greve, 1997; Flig-
stein, 1985; Palmer, Jennings, & Zhou, 1993). This
conflates diffusion with institutionalization—
the process by which a pattern of action be-
comes taken for granted (Meyer, Boli, & Thomas,
1994). Neoinstitutionalists suggest that highly
diffused practices are highly institutionalized
(Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999; Lawrence, Winn,
& Jennings, 2001), and the abandonment of these
practices is associated with deinstitutionaliza-
tion (Lawrence et al., 2001; Oliver, 1992).
However, a management practice can be
highly adopted but not highly institutionalized.
For example, within the S&P 1500, over 50 per-
cent have adopted poison pills—a powerful
takeover defense used to influence a change-of-
control in the firm (Green, 2001). Although this
managerial practice is highly diffused, high
rates of justification are required to maintain its
adoption. This is because the practice is highly
contested and far from institutionalized for var-
ious constituents (e.g., shareholders, manage-
ment, board, employees, debtholders) of the firm
(Green, 2001). Alternatively, highly institutional-
ized and highly adopted practices can begin to
deinstitutionalize, exhibiting increases in justi-
fication, while their level of adoption remains
high (e.g., affirmative action programs).
Institutional change. Decoupling diffusion
and taken-for-grantedness also provides a use-
ful indicator of when institutional change is
more or less likely to occur. Proposition 1 implies
that changes in the level of justification may be
predictors of institutional change and measures
of institutional stability. From this perspective,
we can make predictions based on a theoreti-
cally limited set of discursive conditions. For
example, when justifications are increasing
without a corresponding increase in diffusion,
institutional change is likely. Conversely, when
justifications are decreasing without a corre-
sponding decrease in diffusion, institutional
change is unlikely.
Increasing justifications without a corre-
sponding increase in diffusion represents a de-
cline in legitimacy and taken-for-grantedness
and, thus, an increase in the probability of insti-
tutional change. Specifically, when justifica-
tions rise without a corresponding rise in diffu-
sion, institutional orders may be in conflict,
signifying alternative and competing choices of
action. The justifications lack persuasiveness
and are unable to support continued adoption of
the practice. In this case, actors bring about
change, using the rules and symbols of alterna-
tive institutional logics to deviate from norma-
tive integration and to achieve individual, polit-
ical, and organizational variation (Friedland &
658 October Academy of Management Review
Alford, 1991; Giddens, 1979; Kuhn, 1996; Swid-
dler, 1979).
Conversely, when justifications are decreas-
ing without a corresponding decrease in diffu-
sion, two possible cases exist. Either actors are
internalizing the rules and symbols of their so-
cial system, thus allowing the production of or-
der, conformity, and institutional stability, or the
powerful are forcing the adoption of the practice
while simultaneously prohibiting public debate.
In both cases, the probability of institutional
change is very low. In the first instance, actors
do not perceive a need to change, and in the
second, they do not have the power to imple-
ment change.
RHETORICAL JUSTIFICATIONS
In this section I describe how variation in rhe-
torical justifications shapes the diffusion pro-
cess. I first describe three distinct types of rhe-
torical justifications and develop propositions
that describe their effect on the rate of adoption
and rejection of managerial practices. While
any of these types of appeals may be used in
various sequences to influence diffusion, for the
sake of space, I delineate one prevalent and
influential sequence. I conclude with a descrip-
tion of how these propositions increase our un-
derstanding of the active role of managers in the
production of rationality and diffusion.
Type and Sequence of Justification
The pace of adoption and the rejection of man-
agerial practices are important issues for the
study of diffusion and institutionalization (Law-
rence et al., 2001). A rhetorical theory of diffusion
provides a useful conceptual basis to theorize
about these issues. Specifically, the rhetorical
model developed in Proposition 1 enables us to
correlate the content or type of justification with
the rate and extent of diffusion. This correlation
indicates the persuasiveness of each type of
justification and is measured by the degree of
taken-for-grantedness exhibited by the practice
over time.
Although justifications can take on many dif-
ferent forms (Bies, 1987; Elsbach, 1994; Hirsch-
man, 1991; Lamertz & Baum, 1998; Scott & Lyman,
1968; Semin & Manstead, 1983), rhetorical theo-
rists propose three main types: pathos, logos,
and ethos (Aristotle, 1991; Bizzell & Herzberg,
1990; Herrick, 2001; King & Kugler, 2000; Nohria &
Harrington, 1994). Pathos justifications impact
emotions and are likely to elicit powerful yet
unsustainable social action. They may be used,
for example, to justify a particular course of ac-
tion based on a listener’s sense of greed or fear.
Logos appeals affect the logical part of the
mind; they tend to elicit methodical calculation
of means and ends to achieve efficiency or ef-
fectiveness. Ethos justifications impact moral or
ethical sensibilities. They may require sacrific-
ing self-interests for honor, tradition, or justice
and are often elicited by the character or credi-
bility of the speaker (Bizzell & Herzberg, 1990;
Herrick, 2001). Moreover, pathos and logos pleas
produce pragmatic legitimacy and appeal to an
audience’s self-interests, whereas ethos justifi-
cations produce moral legitimacy and appeal to
normative approval and moral propriety (Such-
man, 1995). Over time, if these appeals are per-
suasively effective, they will produce cognitive
legitimacy—taken-for-grantedness.
At any given time, a justification may contain
all three types of appeals and may be positive or
negative. For the purpose of exploring how each
appeal affects the speed and breadth of diffu-
sion, as well as the sequence of appeals, I dis-
cuss only pure and positive appeals below.
Pathos. Pathos appeals connect with the emo-
tions of individuals (e.g., fear, greed, etc.). They
are highly passionate appeals to an audience’s
self-interest that build and construct pragmatic
legitimacy (Suchman, 1995). Rhetorical theory
suggests that actors have cognitive and atten-
tion limits (Bizzell & Herzberg, 1990; Guthrie,
1993; Kerferd, 1993; Richards, 1965); thus, individ-
ual resistance and group conformity hinder
change efforts like the adoption of new practices
(Simon, 1945). Emotional appeals have the abil-
ity to grab an actor’s limited attention, excite the
imagination, and direct behavior away from the
status quo (King & Kugler, 2000).
Although initially persuasive, emotional ap-
peals are unable to sustain the limited attention
of actors. Thus, practices associated with emo-
tional appeals have transient persuasive power
that may exhibit fadlike tendencies (Abraham-
son & Fairchild, 1999). Applying these ideas to
diffusion suggests the following.
Proposition 2: A managerial practice
supported with pathos justifications
2004 659 Green
will have a fast rate of adoption and a
fast rate of rejection.
Logos. Logos pleas justify action by appealing
to the desire for efficient/effective action and,
like pathos, help build pragmatic legitimacy
(Suchman, 1995). Whereas pathos appeals are
capable of eliciting strong initial reactions,
logos justifications are slower at getting actors’
attention, because they often require methodical
calculation of means and ends (Simon, 1945).
Initially, the call for efficiency/effectiveness is
less powerful than a pathos appeal (like fear).
However, whereas passionate pleas tend to dis-
sipate quickly, appeals to logic are able to sus-
tain their persuasiveness.
Compared to pathos, logos appeals have a
slower yet more sustained effect on diffusion,
partly because they are socially accepted and
admired within the business community (Put-
nam & Mumby, 1993). Although logos pleas have
a slower persuasive force than pathos appeals,
their focus on individual interests gives them a
faster effect on persuasion than ethos appeals.
Similarly, logos appeals sustain their persua-
sive effect longer than pathos appeals, yet their
social acceptance and, thus, sustainability are
less than that of ethos appeals. Therefore, man-
agement practices associated with logos ap-
peals should diffuse and be abandoned at
slower rates than those supported with pathos
appeals, yet at faster rates than ethos appeals.
Proposition 3: A managerial practice
supported with logos justifications
will have a medium rate of adoption
and a medium rate of rejection.
Ethos. Ethos appeals justify action by appeal-
ing to socially accepted norms and mores. They
produce moral legitimacy that “rests not on
judgments about whether a given activity ben-
efits the evaluator, but rather on judgments
about whether the activity is the ‘right thing to
do’” (Suchman, 1995: 579). Ethos appeals are
probably the most powerful, with the most en-
during impact on taken-for-grantedness (Aristo-
tle, 1991; Herrick, 2001). Whereas pathos and
logos justifications emphasize individual con-
cerns and interests, ethos appeals focus on so-
cial and collective interests. This emphasis pro-
longs the time required for ethos pleas to have
persuasive effects, because they typically re-
quire more complex cognitive processing than
direct appeals to individual interests. Ethos ap-
peals may also have a slower persuasive affect
because they require the sacrifice of individual
interests for social interests.
Although ethos appeals are initially slow to
persuade, once an ethos-supported practice is
adopted, it becomes difficult to abandon. In a
sense, social practices supported by ethos ap-
peals become synonymous with what is right
and what is good.
Proposition 4: A managerial practice
supported with ethos justifications
will have a slow rate of adoption and
a slow rate of rejection.
The sequence of rhetoric. Pathos, logos, and
ethos appeals may combine to shape the speed
and extent of diffusion. Specifically, these three
types suggest a rhetorical sequence for highly
diffused managerial practices, starting with pa-
thos, followed by logos, and ending with ethos
justifications. Each type of appeal has particular
characteristics that resonate with specific peri-
ods in the life cycle of diffusion. Pathos pleas
are based on emotion and, in the beginning of
the diffusion process, can capture potential
adopters’ limited attention and willingness to
act. Although emotional energy can help liber-
ate social inertia, it is unlikely to persist. Fortu-
nately, logos appeals can provide managers
with persuasive arguments for continuing to
adopt managerial practices. Appealing to the
desire for effectiveness and efficiency, logos ap-
peals sustain their persuasive power longer
than pathos appeals, in large part because
these arguments tend to be more socially ac-
cepted and admired by management than emo-
tional ones. During the middle stages of diffu-
sion, for example, logos justifications can
promote beliefs that the managerial practice
works and achieves stated goals, thus encour-
aging managers to continue adopting it. Finally,
ethos arguments have the longest-lasting per-
suasive effects. Managerial practices supported
by ethos appeals become synonymous with
what is right and good. They become deeply
entrenched and difficult to reject. Thus, ethos
arguments can sustain the adoption of manage-
rial practices that have lost their emotional or
logical appeal.
Organizational theorists may observe a simi-
lar process when they describe successful
change efforts. For instance, Kurt Lewin and
660 October Academy of Management Review
Dorwin Cartwright (1964) argued that successful
change in organizations should follow three
steps: (1) unfreezing the status quo—change ef-
forts to overcome the pressures of both individ-
ual and group conformity; (2) moving to the new
state—new behaviors adopted and old behav-
iors discarded; and (3) refreezing the new
change to make it permanent—stabilizing a
change intervention by balancing driving and
restraining forces. Pathos appeals help direct
behavior away from the status quo. Logos ap-
peals link new actions and behaviors to effec-
tive outcomes. Ethos appeals lock in new behav-
iors and hinder movement from the new
equilibrium.
Whereas pathos may initiate change, logos
implement it, and ethos sustain it, each type of
appeal may fit with specific periods in the life
cycle of a highly diffused practice. Preliminary
evidence supports the plausibility of this rhetor-
ical sequence. In a longitudinal study of the
adoption of corporate takeover defenses in
North America, I (Green, 2001) found that this
popular and highly diffused set of corporate
governance practices started with pathos justi-
fications in response to the fear that corporate
raiders would pillage the firm. Next, takeover
defenses were dominated by logos justifica-
tions, which asserted that they helped board
members maximize shareholder value and at-
tain the highest price for the firm. Finally, at
takeover defenses’ broadest levels of diffusion,
their adoption was most highly correlated with
ethos justifications, which asserted that take-
over defenses helped board members perform
their duty of protecting stakeholder rights.
A similar pattern appears in the diffusion of
total quality management (TQM) in the United
States—an admired and highly adopted set of
managerial techniques (Lawler, Mohrman, & Le-
ford, 1992). TQM was initially justified with pa-
thos arguments that predicted American busi-
ness obsolescence in the face of Japanese
economic aggression (Easton, 1993). Next, it was
supported with logos appeals, which argued
that TQM was a useful and effective managerial
practice for improving firm performance (Lawler
& Mohrman, 1985). Later, ethos justifications de-
scribed how TQM contributed to democratic ide-
als through employee teamwork and participa-
tion in work decisions (Lawler et al., 1992). This
preliminary evidence and the ideas discussed
above suggest the following proposition.
Proposition 5: A managerial practice
for which the diffusion process follows
a rhetorical sequence that starts with
pathos, moves to logos, and ends with
ethos will have a rapid rate of initial
adoption, a broad diffusion, and a
slow abandonment.
Rhetorical Justifications and Our View of
Rationality and Diffusion
Rhetoric, rationality, and the diffusion pro-
cess. Propositions 2 through 5 suggest that ra-
tionality and, thus, the choices of potential
adopters are discursive products. This is a rad-
ical change from traditional models of diffusion
(neoinstitutional, efficiency, and network), in
which it is assumed that rationality is shaped
by such factors as social relations, markets, pro-
fessions, competition, the state, social catego-
ries/concepts, and/or fashion markets (Abraham-
son, 1996; Burt, 1987; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983;
Douglas, 1986; Granovetter, 1985; Scott, 1995; Si-
mon, 1945; Strang & Macy, 2001; Strang & Meyer,
1994). These models are inherently adaptivist
because they assume that firms adopt new prac-
tices in order to fulfill the need to acquire re-
sources in the technoeconomic environment or
to conform normatively to the social environ-
ment (Hasselbladh & Kallinikos, 2000; Hassel-
bladh & Theodoridis, 1997). Traditional models
also fail to explain why those needs exist or
become influential, or why a particular structure
fulfills the need in question (Perrow, 1993). The
assumption in these models is that practices
that satisfy needs are meaningful, and, thus, the
adoption of these practices is rational. Yet these
formulations underemphasize an actor’s capac-
ity to linguistically construct meaning and, thus,
obfuscate important facets of organizational life
(Pondy & Mitroff, 1979).
In contrast, proponents of a rhetorical per-
spective argue that organizational actors are
capable of changing what they find meaningful
(Aristotle, 1991; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca,
1969; Quinn, 1996; Toulmin, 1969). They can sup-
press what are ostensibly the most dominant of
needs and participate in hunger strikes, vows of
celibacy, and suicide bombings. Thus, actors
may find meaningful that which they need, but
may also need that which they find meaningful
(Booth, 1974; Husserl, 1962; Rubin, 1998). The de-
sire to survive, acquire material wealth and sta-
2004 661 Green
tus, or outperform one’s competitors does not
rationalize the adoption of managerial prac-
tices. Managers using pathos, logos, and ethos
in conversation with themselves and others
rationalize the adoption of a managerial prac-
tice and, thus, determine its ultimate breadth of
diffusion.
Another important distinction between a rhe-
torical model of diffusion and traditional models
is their differing conceptions of the components
of rationality. For example, a rhetorical perspec-
tive suggests that emotional justifications (pa-
thos) are an essential component of reasoned
argument, as opposed to irrational impediments
to decision making (Herrick, 2001; O’Neill, 1997).
Culturally, the West has chosen to emphasize
the logical aspects of rationality (Putnam &
Mumby, 1993); however, a rhetorical view re-
minds us that we also calculate with our emo-
tions, suggesting that emotions and rationality
are interpenetrated (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995;
Damasio, 1994; Domagalski, 1999; Fineman,
1996).
This is contrary to traditional diffusion per-
spectives that treat emotions as pejorative and
distinct from rationality (Domagalski, 1999; Put-
nam & Mumby, 1993). The management fashion
literature, for example, suggests that practices
adopted for emotional or social psychological
reasons cause managers to irrationally partici-
pate in superstitious learning, adopting and re-
jecting useless solutions to imaginary problems
(Abrahamson, 1996; Abrahamson & Fairchild,
1999). Accordingly, management practices
driven by technoeconomic forces are favored in
this literature over those motivated by sociopsy-
chological and emotional forces (Abrahamson,
1996). Yet sometimes managers may need to
elicit quick and fast action. Firms may be faced
with so much organizational inertia or compla-
cency that emotional appeals are the only effec-
tive way to get actors’ attention and to get en-
ergy mobilized for change. These ideas resonate
with descriptions of successful social and polit-
ical movements that often use emotional ap-
peals to elicit effective social action (Gamson &
Meyer, 1996; Hirschman, 1991). A rhetorical the-
ory of diffusion in general, and Propositions 2
and 5 in particular, suggest that emotional ap-
peals can be effective, appropriate, and rational
components of the adoption decision.
Similarly, a rhetorical perspective empha-
sizes the importance of discourse about ethics in
adoption decisions. Traditional models of diffu-
sion often overemphasize the importance of the
logical aspects of rationality, at the expense of
ethical and moral sensibilities. Failing to recall
the Ford Pinto and systemically hiding the ef-
fects of tobacco are prime examples of where
managers may have overemphasized the logi-
cal components of their decision making and,
thus, adopted practices lacking sufficient moral
and ethical reasoning (Birsch & Fielder, 1994;
Mitroff & Anagnos, 2000). Propositions 4 and 5
highlight the important role ethics plays in the
spread and stability of organizational practices.
Rhetoric and the active role of managers. A
rhetorical theory of diffusion proposes that insti-
tutional change and stability are functions of
rhetorical strategies, suggesting a view of diffu-
sion that includes an active role for the man-
ager, without being too undersocialized. Manag-
ers are seen as constructing justifications from
endoxa—commonly held or taken-for-granted
premises. These appeals are then used to sup-
port, advocate, and implement new behaviors
and ideas, which, if successful, may themselves
become taken for granted. This explains how
culture and discourse, with their complex web of
commonly accepted premises and meanings, re-
strict the choices available to actors (Aristotle,
1991; Burke, 1969; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca,
1969; Quine & Ullian, 1978). Yet a rhetorical per-
spective also underscores the indeterminacy
and agentic possibilities of organizational life
and, thus, the ability of proactive managers to
use commonly accepted premises in new and
inventive ways to modify available choices (Ar-
istotle, 1991; Burke, 1969; Perelman & Olbrechts-
Tyteca, 1969; Quine & Ullian, 1978; Wittgenstein,
1963).
In sum, a rhetorical perspective restores
agency. Rhetoric is used more or less artfully to
change things, so it is rich precisely where the-
ory is most needed: the interconnection of struc-
ture and agency. The application of a rhetorical
perspective to diffusion is just an illustration of
this more general point.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In this section I first discuss the implications
of a rhetorical theory of diffusion for our under-
standing of diffusion and the behavior of
organizations. I then describe potential future
research within the context of the model pre-
662 October Academy of Management Review
sented. I conclude with a discussion of the main
points of a rhetorical theory of diffusion and
highlight the importance of studying language
for organizational research.
Implications of a Rhetorical Theory of
Diffusion
A rhetorical theory of diffusion enhances our
understanding of how managerial practices dif-
fuse. Managers and managerial scientists
spend enormous resources and energy search-
ing for and creating new practices. Some of
these practices thrive and become broadly dif-
fused and accepted, whereas others dissipate
and disappear as fast as they arrive. Although
organizational scholars propose that diffusion is
shaped by a variety of factors (Greve, 1995; Ol-
iver, 1992; O’Neill et al., 1998), most of their ex-
planations gravitate toward realist concerns
while underemphasizing the role of linguistic
factors (Strang & Meyer, 1994). Moreover, neoin-
stitutionalists often emphasize the persistence
and endurance of diffused practices while ig-
noring their dissipation and rejection (Oliver,
1992). In contrast, a rhetorical theory of diffusion
shows how the spread and dissipation of man-
agerial practices depend on the sequence and
type of rhetoric. Specifically, pathos, logos, and
ethos justifications shape the rationality under-
lying both the adoption and rejection of mana-
gerial practices.
A rhetorical theory of diffusion also highlights
the active role of managers in organizational
change and behavior. For instance, neoinstitu-
tionalists assume that managers’ cognitive and
attention limits allow their rationality to be
shaped by the organizational environment
(Powell & DiMaggio, 1991). Within this frame-
work, managers passively adhere to the domi-
nant cultural and discursive guidelines of legit-
imate behavior (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Powell
& DiMaggio, 1991). In contrast, a rhetorical per-
spective emphasizes how actors’ cognitive lim-
its enable the agentic use of discourse (Bizzell &
Herzberg, 1990; Guthrie, 1993; Kerferd, 1993; Rich-
ards, 1965). From a rhetorical perspective, cogni-
tive limits allow for the active and intentional
use of discourse to construct organizational
problems, solutions, and goals. This resonates
with more agentic conceptions of managers,
cognitive limits, and discourse (Ford & Ford,
1995; Friedland & Alford, 1991; Oswick, Keenoy,
& Grant, 1997; Perrow, 1993).
Implications for Future Research
Finally, rhetorical theory identifies several
critical areas for future research. A popular per-
spective in diffusion theory emphasizes the role
of social structure in shaping diffusion patterns
(Burt, 1987; Coleman, Katz, & Menzel, 1966;
Granovetter & Soong, 1983; Macy & Strang, 2001;
Schelling, 1978; Strang & Meyer, 1994; Valente,
1996). The rhetorical view suggests a more rad-
ical conceptualization of social structure in the
diffusion process. Instead of an assumption that
social structure is independent of and exists
prior to rhetoric, social structure is seen as
something that is shaped and constructed by
discourse.
For example, the rhetoric of TQM advocates
that firms adopting TQM change both the struc-
ture and content of their supplier relationships.
The rhetoric of TQM encourages firms to choose
supplier relationships based on quality as op-
posed to just price and to decrease the total
number of suppliers in favor of a smaller set of
long-term relationships (Deming, 1986; Hackman
& Wageman, 1995; Ishikawa, 1985; Juran, 1974).
TQM rhetoric also admonishes firms to decrease
the variation in their production process by de-
manding that firms supplying important inputs
adopt TQM practices and procedures (Deming,
1986; Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Ishikawa,
1985; Juran, 1974). This TQM rhetoric constructs
and shapes social structure and, thus, the diffu-
sion of the practice itself.
Many ideologies in our society demonstrate
similar rhetorical properties. For instance, the
rhetoric of proselytizing religions like Christian-
ity suggests that telling others about Christian-
ity is a good deed that can increase the chance
of getting to heaven. Thus, adherents to the
Christian faith are rhetorically encouraged to
engage in missionary and proselytizing activi-
ties that create and establish new social rela-
tionships in order to further spread Christian
beliefs and practices (Dawkins, 1976; Lynch,
1996). In future studies researchers could exam-
ine the rhetorical viral and mimetic properties of
managerial discourse.
A second critical area for future research con-
cerns the relationship between rhetoric and out-
comes. Several organizational theorists have
2004 663 Green
commented on how discourse may bring perfor-
mance gaps to the attention of managers and
shape their beliefs about the efficacy of partic-
ular managerial practices (Abrahamson & Fair-
child, 1999; Strang, 1991; Zbaracki, 1998). At the
core of these descriptions is the assumption that
the speed and breadth of diffusion are positively
related to how well a managerial practice de-
creases performance gaps (Abrahamson, 1991;
O’Neill et al., 1998; Thirtle & Ruttan, 1987). A
rhetorical theory of diffusion is consistent with
the view that discourse shapes the beliefs and
attention of actors; however, it suggests that the
discourse justifying a practice may construct
the world in such a way that the “real” effects of
the practice conform to its description.
For example, managerial capitalism or man-
agerial control of the firm is legitimated by
discourse that suggests managers have supe-
rior knowledge of the firm. However, the very
nature of managerial control enables manag-
ers to accumulate the knowledge they are de-
scribed as having in the first place (Chandler,
1977; Green, 2001; Taylor, 1911). Even if man-
agers initially lack superior knowledge of the
firm, once they are in control, they use their
positions to acquire greater knowledge. Thus,
the legitimacy of their authority increases in a
positive feedback loop. In a sense, the rhetoric
of a new practice becomes the reality of that
practice. In future research scholars might ex-
amine the link between the rhetoric of a prac-
tice and the reality of that practice in order to
shed light on how language as a form of action
(Austin, 1975) shapes and affects organiza-
tions.
Additionally, a rhetorical theory of diffusion
has implications for research on the role of un-
certainty and power in the diffusion of manage-
rial practices. Many theorists have conceptual-
ized uncertainty as playing an important role in
the diffusion process (Abrahamson & Rosenkopf,
1993; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Haunschild &
Miner, 1997; March & Olsen, 1979; Pfeffer, Salan-
cik, & Leblebici, 1976; Rogers, 1995). Similarly, in
several studies researchers have elaborated on
the important role of power in the adoption of a
practice (Baron, Dobbin, & Jennings, 1986; Dob-
bin, Edelman, Meyer, Scott, & Swiddler, 1988;
Oliver, 1991; O’Neill et al., 1998). However, these
formulations underemphasize the effects of cog-
nitive limits on power (Perrow, 1993).
Rhetorical theory can increase understanding
of this process. If the cognitive limits of those in
power place them in an ambiguous and uncer-
tain world, then they might not know what ac-
tions actually benefit them (Perrow, 1993). They
might not know that certain courses of action
are more efficient than others. They may not
even know the potential of their own power. This
ambiguity allows for the influence of rhetori-
cally savvy consultants, academics, and corpo-
rate actors. Rhetorically gifted takeover entre-
preneurs can galvanize shareholders in the
takeover of the firm, and rhetorically adept
union leaders can persuade workers to organize
strikes and work stoppages. To the skillful rhet-
orician, the ambiguity social actors face is fer-
tile ground for the active construction of inter-
ests and the courses of action supporting them
(Gamson & Meyer, 1996; Hirschman, 1991). In fu-
ture studies researchers can clarify how rhetoric
mediates and shapes the role of power and un-
certainty in the diffusion process. This might
explain the spread of practices as varied as
employee stock ownership programs and hostile
two-tier bids.
Researchers might also examine the effect of
both positive and negative rhetoric within dis-
course. For instance, in the early stage of diffu-
sion, practices supported with positive pathos
rhetoric and criticized with negative ethos rhet-
oric may diffuse differently from practices sup-
ported with positive pathos rhetoric and criti-
cized with negative logos rhetoric. Laboratory
studies using variation in rhetorical justifica-
tions as interventions could shed light on these
dynamics. Additionally, further research is
needed to address the diffusion of practices
across heterogeneous populations or different
discursive environments, and whether the diffu-
sion of different types of practices is more or less
associated with different types of rhetorical jus-
tifications. Research is also needed to explore
the differences between the capacities of indi-
vidual actors to use or be moved by different
types of justifications. Understanding variation
in these individual capacities may provide im-
portant insight into diffusion, leadership, and
organizational change.
Conclusion
Rhetorical theory provides a unique analyti-
cal framework for the study of organizational
664 October Academy of Management Review
issues. Examining diffusion from a rhetorical
perspective enables the decoupling of diffusion
from institutionalization. It demonstrates that
highly adopted practices are not necessarily
highly institutionalized. Sometimes highly
adopted practices require justifications to main-
tain their adoption. At other times, practices are
highly adopted because those with power force
them on others.
Rhetorical theory also enhances the devel-
opment of diffusion measures and, therefore,
addresses limitations of existing diffusion the-
ories. For instance, in neoinstitutional theory
it is difficult to measure taken-for-grantedness,
which is a central feature of neoinstitutional
explanations (Donaldson, 1995; Hasselbladh &
Kallinikos, 2000; Zucker, 1987). Proposition 1 de-
fines the degree of taken-for-grantedness as a
function of two measurable constructs: diffusion
(percent of population adopting the practice)
and justifications (the number of appeals sup-
porting the practice). It also shows how different
types of justifications can produce different
types of legitimacy. By extending our ability to
focus on indicators of institutionalization, rhe-
torical theory provides a means to observe and
measure institutional forces at various levels of
analysis—from small groups to populations of
firms. It can also be applied to different types
of practices—from the adoption of new technol-
ogies to the adoption of structural forms.
Moreover, a rhetorical theory of diffusion al-
lows us to critically examine the dynamic rela-
tionship between justifications and diffusion
and, thus, understand institutionalization as
both a process and a state. Changes in the
breadth of diffusion or number of justifications
define the process by which a pattern of action
becomes taken for granted or institutionalized.
In addition, the breadth of diffusion relative to
the number of justifications represents the state
or degree of taken-for-grantedness or institu-
tionalization.
Most important, a rhetorical theory of diffu-
sion highlights the causal potency of language
in shaping organizational life and behavior. It
advocates the study and use of language for
helping researchers better understand organi-
zations. Moreover, rhetorical theory portrays the
manager as rhetor and suggests that his or her
most influential tool is language.
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, E. 1991. Managerial fads and fashions: The
diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 16: 586–612.
Abrahamson, E. 1996. Management fashion. Academy of
Management Review, 21: 254–285.
Abrahamson, E. 1997. The emergence and prevalence of
employee-management rhetorics: The effect of long
waves, labor unions, and turnover, 1875 to 1992. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 40: 491–533.
Abrahamson, E., & Fairchild, G. 1999. Management fashion:
Lifecycles, triggers and collective learning processes.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 708–740.
Abrahamson, E., & Rosenkopf, L. 1993. Institutional and com-
petitive bandwagons: Using mathematical modeling as
a tool to explore innovation diffusion. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 18: 487–518.
Aldrich, H., & Fiol, C. 1994. Fools rush in? The institutional
context of industry creation. Academy of Management
Review, 19: 645–670.
Alvesson, M., & Ka¨ rreman, D. 2000. Taking the linguistic turn
in organizational research: Challenges, responses, con-
sequences. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36:
136–158.
Aristotle 1991. The art of rhetoric. New York: Penguin Books.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. 1995. Emotion in the work-
place: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48: 97–125.
Astley, W. G., & Zammuto, R. F. 1992. Organization science,
managers, and language games. Organization Science,
3: 443–460.
Austin, J. L. 1975. How to do things with words. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bakhtin, M. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: Uni-
versity Press.
Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. 1992. Design and devotion: Surges
of rational and normative ideologies of control in man-
agerial discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37:
363–399.
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. 1997. Institutionalization and
structuration: Studying the links between action and
institution. Organization Studies, 18: 93–117.
Baron, J. N., Dobbin, F. R., & Jennings, P. D. 1986. War and
peace: The evolution of modern personnel administra-
tion in U.S. industry. American Journal of Sociology, 92:
350–383.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of
reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New
York: Doubleday.
Bies, R. J. 1987. The predicament of injustice: The manage-
ment of moral outrage. Research in Organizational Be-
havior, 9: 289–319.
Billig, M. 1996. Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach
to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Birsch, D., & Fielder, J. H. 1994. The Ford Pinto case: A study
2004 665 Green
in applied ethics, business, and technology. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (Eds.). 1990. The rhetorical tradition:
Readings from classical times to the present. Boston:
Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press.
Booth, W. 1974. Modern dogma and the rhetoric of assent.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burke, K. 1969. A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Burt, R. S. 1987. Structural contagion and innovation: Cohe-
sion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of
Sociology, 92: 1287–1335.
Carson, P., Lanier, P., Carson, K., & Guidry, B. 2000. Clearing
a path through the management fashion jungle: Some
preliminary trailblazing. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 43: 1143–1159.
Chandler, A. D. 1977. The visible hand: The managerial rev-
olution in American business. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press.
Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Menzel, H. 1966. Medical innova-
tion: A diffusion study. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Damasio, A. R. 1994. Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and
the human brain. New York: Putnam.
Dandridge, T. C., Mitroff, I., & Joyce, W. F. 1980. Organiza-
tional symbolism: A topic to expand organizational
analysis. Academy of Management Review, 5: 77–82.
Davis, G. 1991. Agents without principles? The spread of the
poison pill through the intercorporate network. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 36: 583–590.
Davis, G., & Greve, H. 1997. Corporate elite networks and
governance changes in the 1980’s. American Journal of
Sociology, 103: 1–37.
Dawkins, R. 1976. The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Deming, E. 1986. Out of crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engi-
neering Study.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. 1983. The iron cage revisited:
Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in
organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48:
147–160.
Dobbin, F. R., Edelman, L., Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R., &
Swiddler, A. 1988. The expansion of due process in or-
ganizations. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns
and organizations: Culture and environments: 71–100.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Domagalski, T. 1999. Emotion in organizations: Main cur-
rents. Human Relations, 52: 833–852.
Donaldson, L. 1995. American anti-management theories of
organization: A critique of paradigm proliferation. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Douglas, M. 1986. How institutions think. Syracuse, NY: Syr-
acuse University Press.
Easton, G. S. 1993. The 1993 state of U.S. total quality man-
agement: A Baldridge examiner’s perspective. Califor-
nia Management Review, 35(3): 32–55.
Eccles, R., Nohria, N., & Berkley, J. D. 1992. Beyond the hype:
Rediscovering the essence of management. Boston: Har-
vard Business School Press.
Elsbach, K. D. 1994. Managing organizational legitimacy in
the California cattle industry: The construction and ef-
fectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 39: 57–88.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cam-
bridge, MA: Polity Press.
Fineman, S. 1996. Emotion and organizing. In S. Clegg,
C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), The handbook of organization
studies: 543–564. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fligstein, N. 1985. The structural transformation of American
industry: An institutional account of the causes of diver-
sification in the largest firms. In W. W. Powell & P. J.
DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organiza-
tional analysis: 311–336. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. 1995. The role of conversations in
producing intentional change in organizations. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 20: 541–570.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. 1991. Bringing society back in:
Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In
W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institu-
tionalism in organizational analysis: 223–262. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Gamson, W. A., & Meyer, D. S. 1996. Framing political oppor-
tunity. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.),
Comparative perspectives on social movements: Politi-
cal opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural
framings: 275–290. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gergen, K. J. 1994. Realities and relationships: Soundings in
social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Gergen, K. J., & Thatchenkery, T. J. 1996. Organization sci-
ence as social construction: Postmodern potentials. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32: 356–377.
Giddens, A. 1979. Central problems in social theory: Action,
structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Gill, A. M., & Whedbee, K. 1997. Rhetoric. In T. A. van Dijk
(Ed.), Discourse as structure and process: Discourse stud-
ies: A multidisciplinary introduction: 157–184. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure:
The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of So-
ciology, 91: 481–510.
Granovetter, M., & Soong, R. 1983. Threshold models of dif-
fusion and collective behavior. Journal of Mathematical
Sociology, 9(3): 165–179.
Grant, D., Keenoy, T., & Oswick, C. 1998. Discourse and or-
ganization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Green, S. Jr., 2001. Rhetoric and the institutionalization of
takeover defenses in the S&P 1500 from 1975–1998. Un-
666 October Academy of Management Review
published doctoral dissertation, Harvard University
Graduate School of Business, Boston.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. 2002. Theorizing
change: The role of professional associations in the
transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of
Management Journal, 45: 58–80.
Greve, H. 1995. Jumping ship: The diffusion of strategy aban-
donment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 444–473.
Guthrie, W. K. C. 1993. The sophists. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Habermas, J. 1984. The theory of communicative action. Bos-
ton: Beacon Press.
Hackman, R., & Wageman, R. 1995. Total quality manage-
ment: Empirical, conceptual, and practical issues. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 40: 309–342.
Hasselbladh, H., & Kallinikos, J. 2000. The project of ration-
alization: A critique and reappraisal of neo-institution-
alism in organization studies. Organization Studies, 21:
697–720.
Hasselbladh, H., & Theodoridis, F. 1997. Social magmas and
the conventional explanatory pyramid. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 14(1–2): 53–76.
Haunschild, P. R., & Miner, A. S. 1997. Modes of interorgani-
zational imitation: The effects of outcome, salience,
and uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42:
472–500.
Herrick, J. A. 2001. The history and theory of rhetoric: An
introduction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hirsch, P. 1986. From ambushes to golden parachutes: Cor-
porate takeovers as an instance of cultural framing and
institutional integration. American Journal of Sociology,
91: 800–837.
Hirschman, A. 1991. The rhetoric of reaction. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Homans, G. C. 1961. Social behavior: Its elementary forms.
New York: Harcort, Brace & World.
Huff, A. S. 1983. A rhetorical examination of strategic change.
In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G, Morgan, & T. C. Dandridge
(Eds.), Organizational symbolism: 167–183. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Husserl, E. 1962. Ideas: General introduction to pure phenom-
enology. New York: Collier.
Ishikawa, K. 1985. What is total quality control? The Japanese
way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jepperson, R. L. 1991. Institutions, institutional effects, and
institutionalism. In W. W. Powell & P. J. Dimaggio (Eds.),
The new institutionalism in organizational analysis:
146–163. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Juran, J. M. 1974. The quality control handbook (3rd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Kerferd, G. B. 1993. The sophistic movement. Cambridge:
Cambridge University.
Kieser, A. 1997. Rhetoric and myth in management fashion.
Organization: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organiza-
tion, Theory, and Society, 4(1): 49–74.
King, W. R., & Kugler, J. L. 2000. The impact of rhetorical
strategies on innovation decisions: An experimental
study. Omega, 28: 485–499.
Krackhardt, D. 2001. Viscosity models and the diffusion of
controversial innovation. In A. Lomi & E. Larsen (Eds.),
Dynamics of organizations: Computational modeling
and organization theories: 243–268. Menlo Park, CA:
AAAI Press/MIT Press.
Kuhn, T. S. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Lamertz, K., & Baum, J. A. C. 1998. The legitimacy of organi-
zational downsizing in Canada: An analysis of explan-
atory media accounts. Canadian Journal of Administra-
tive Sciences, 15(1): 93–107.
Lawler, E., III, & Mohrman, S. 1985. Quality circles after the
fad. Harvard Business Review, 63(1): 65–71.
Lawler, E., III, Mohrman, S., & Leford, G. J. 1992. Employee
involvement and total quality management. San Fran-
cisco: Josey-Bass.
Lawrence, T. B., Winn, M. I., & Jennings, P. D. 2001. The
temporal dynamics of institutionalization. Academy of
Management Review, 28: 624–644.
Lewin, K., & Cartwright, D. 1964. Field theory in social sci-
ence. New York: Harper & Row.
Lynch, A. 1996. Thought contagion: How belief spreads
through society. New York: Basic Books.
Macy, M., & Strang, D. 2001. Dedicated followers of success:
A computational model of fashionable innovations. In
A. Lomi & E. Larsen (Eds.), Dynamics of organizations:
Computational modeling and organization theories: 93–
117. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/MIT Press.
March, J. G., & Heath, C. 1994. A primer on decision making:
How decisions happen. New York: Free Press.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1979. Ambiguity and choice in
organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
McCloskey, D. N. 1998. The rhetoric of economics. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. 1991. Institutionalized organizations:
Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In W. W. Powell
& P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in or-
ganizational analysis: 41–62. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. 1994. Ontology and
rationalization. In R. Scott & J. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional
environments and organizations: Structural complexity
and individualism: 9–27. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mintzberg, H. 1973. The nature of managerial work. New
York: Harper & Row.
Mitroff, I. I., & Anagnos, G. 2000. Managing crises before they
happen: What every executive and manager needs to
know about crisis management. New York: Amacom.
Nohria, N., & Harrington, B. 1994. The rhetoric of change.
Research note No. 9-494-036. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business School.
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional pro-
cesses. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145–179.
2004 667 Green
Oliver, C. 1992. The antecedents of deinstitutionalization.
Organization Studies, 13: 568–588.
O’Neill, H. M., Pouder, R. W., & Buchholtz, A. K. 1998. Patterns
in the diffusion of strategies across organizations: In-
sights from the innovation diffusion literature. Academy
of Management Review, 23: 98–114.
O’Neill, J. 1997. Rhetoric, science, and philosophy. Philoso-
phy of the Social Sciences, 28(2): 205–225.
Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. 1997. Managerial dis-
courses: Words speak louder than actions? Journal of
Applied Management Studies, 6(1): 5–12.
Palmer, D. A., Jennings, P. D., & Zhou, X. 1993. Late adoption
of the multidivisional form by large U.S. corporations:
Institutional, political, and economic accounts. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 38: 100–131.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The new rhetoric:
A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame Press.
Perrow, C. 1993. Complex organizations: A critical essay.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pfeffer, J. 1981. Management as symbolic action. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 3: 1–51.
Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G. R., & Leblebici, H. 1976. The effect of
uncertainty on the use of social influence in organiza-
tional decision making. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 21: 227–245.
Pondy, L. R., & Mitroff, I. I. 1979. Beyond open systems of
organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1:
3–39.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. 1991. Introduction. In W. W.
Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism
in organizational analysis: 1–38. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Putnam, L., & Mumby, D. 1993. Organizations, emotion and
the myth of rationality. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotions in
organizations: 36–57. London: Sage.
Quine, W. V., & Ullian, J. S. 1978. The web of belief. New York:
Random House.
Quinn, K. 1996. A rhetorical conception of practical ration-
ality. Journal of Economic Issues, 30: 1127–1142.
Richards, I. A. 1965. The philosophy of rhetoric. London: Ox-
ford University Press.
Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free
Press.
Rorty, R. 1980. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rubin, E. 1998. Putting rational actors in their place: Econom-
ics and phenomenology. Vanderbilt Law Review, 51:
1705–1727.
Schelling, T. C. 1978. Micromotives and macrobehavior. New
York: Norton.
Schutz, A. 1962. Collected papers: The problems of social
reality. The Hague: Marinuw Nijhorr.
Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. 1968. Accounts. American Socio-
logical Review, 33: 46–92.
Scott, R. W. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in administration: A sociologi-
cal interpretation. New York: Harper & Row.
Semin, G. R., & Manstead, A. S. R. 1983. The accountability of
conduct: A social psychological analysis. London & New
York: Academic Press, published in cooperation with
the European Association of Experimental Social Psy-
chology.
Simon, H. 1945. Administrative behavior. New York: Free
Press.
Strang, D. 1991. Adding social structure to diffusion models:
An event history framework. Sociological Methods and
Research, 19: 324–353.
Strang, D., & Macy, M. W. 2001. In search of excellence: Fads,
success stories, and adaptive emulation. American Jour-
nal of Sociology 107: 147–182.
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. 1994. Institutional conditions for
diffusion. In R. W. Scott & J. W. Meyer (Eds.), Institu-
tional environments and organizations: Structural
complexity and individualism: 100 –111. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. 1998. Diffusion in organizations and
social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills.
Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 265–290.
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and
institutional approaches. Academy of Management Re-
view, 20: 571–610.
Swiddler, A. 1979. Culture and action: Symbols and strate-
gies. American Sociological Review, 51: 273–286.
Taylor, F. W. 1911. The principles of scientific management.
New York: Harper Brothers.
Thirtle, C. G., & Ruttan, V. W. 1987. The role of demand and
supply in the generation and diffusion of technical
change. Chur, Switzerland & New York: Harwood Aca-
demic.
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. 1983. Institutional sources of
change in the formal structure of organizations: The
diffusion of civil service reform 1880–1935. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 30: 22–39.
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. 1996. The institutionalization of
institutional theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord
(Eds.), Handbook of organization studies: 175–190. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Toulmin, S. E. 1969. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Valente, T. W. 1996. Social network thresholds in the diffu-
sion of innovations. Social Networks, 18: 69–89.
van Dijk, T. A. 1997. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary
introduction. London, Sage.
Watson, T. J. 1995. Rhetoric, discourse and argument in or-
ganizational sense making: A reflexive tale. Organiza-
tion Studies, 16: 805–821.
Weick, K. 1972. The social psychology of organizing. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R., & Shortell, S. M. 1997. Customi-
668 October Academy of Management Review
zation or conformity? An institutional and network
perspective on the content and consequences of TQM
adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 366–
394.
Wittgenstein, L. 1963. Philosophical investigations. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Zald, M. N. 1996. More fragmentation? Unfinished business
in linking the social sciences and the humanities. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 41: 251–264.
Zbaracki, M. 1998. The rhetoric and reality of total quality
management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43:
602–636.
Zucker, L. 1987. Institutional theories of organization. Annual
Review of Sociology, 13: 443–464.
Zucker, L. 1991. The role of institutionalization in cultural
persistence. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The
new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 83–107.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sandy Edward Green, Jr., is an assistant professor of management at the University of
Southern California, Los Angeles. He received his Ph.D. from the Harvard University
Graduate School of Business. His current research interests include neoinstitutional
theory, rhetorical theory, and corporate governance.
2004 669 Green
doc_999899940.pdf
The management field has witnessed the rise and fall of many managerial practices, including sensitivity training, quality circles, and reengineering.
A RHETORICAL THEORY OF DIFFUSION
SANDY EDWARD GREEN, JR.
University of Southern California
I use rhetorical theory to reconceptualize the diffusion of managerial practices. Spe-
cifically, I argue that the diffusion of a practice depends on the discursive justifica-
tions used to rationalize it. When such justifications are accepted and taken for
granted, a practice reaches a state of institutionalization. Furthermore, I propose that
changes in justifications and diffusion provide a basis for explaining institutional-
ization as both a process and a state. I then develop several propositions from this
model.
The management field has witnessed the rise
and fall of many managerial practices, includ-
ing sensitivity training, quality circles, and re-
engineering (Carson, Lanier, Carson, & Guidry,
2000; Eccles, Nohria, & Berkley, 1992). Most man-
agement innovations arrive and dissipate
quickly (Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999), while a
few thrive and diffuse broadly throughout the
business community. Although several theories
explain variation in the diffusion of managerial
practices (Abrahamson, 1991; O’Neill, Pouder, &
Buchholtz, 1998; Rogers, 1995), critics argue that
these explanations often emphasize realist con-
cerns at the expense of linguistic considerations
(Hirsch, 1986; Strang & Meyer, 1994). Therefore, in
this article I use neoinstitutional theory, be-
cause it emphasizes the role of language or dis-
course in the diffusion process (Strang & Meyer,
1994).
Proponents of the neoinstitutional perspective
view the spread of managerial practices as a
salient organizational act that must make sense
to decision makers and must satisfy the institu-
tional environment (Scott, 1995; Tolbert & Zucker,
1996). Managerial practices are accompanied by
legitimating managerial discourse, which ex-
plains how practices help managers rationally
pursue valued goals (Friedland & Alford, 1991;
Strang & Meyer, 1994). For example, the manage-
ment fashion variant of neoinstitutionalism
(Abrahamson, 1996; Abrahamson & Fairchild,
1999; Kieser, 1997) describes how managers use
discourse to communicate to organizational
stakeholders that the adoption of a given prac-
tice complies with norms of rationality and
norms of progress (Abrahamson, 1996; Abraham-
son & Fairchild, 1999). Thus, discourse shapes
decisions about the adoption and wider diffu-
sion of managerial practices (Abrahamson &
Fairchild, 1999; Strang & Meyer, 1994).
Although neoinstitutional theory includes a
role for discourse, two key problems remain.
First, it suggests a model of diffusion that is
inherently adaptivist (Hasselbladh & Kallinikos,
2000). It shifts rational adaptation from the need
to acquire resources in the technoeconomic en-
vironment to the need to conform normatively to
the social environment (Hasselbladh & Kallini-
kos, 2000; Hasselbladh & Theodoridis, 1997), and
it fails to explain why those needs exist or be-
come influential or why a particular structure
fulfills the need in question (Perrow, 1993). Sec-
ond, neoinstitutional theory focuses on how in-
stitutions constrain actors at the expense of ex-
plaining how actors create institutions (Barley &
Tolbert, 1997; Zucker, 1987). Culture and dis-
course restrict the opportunities and alterna-
tives available to actors, yet the ways in which
actors’ choices intentionally modify and shape
institutions are not fully explained (Barley &
Tolbert, 1997). The result is a view of discourse
and its relation to diffusion that is too passive
and oversocialized—a view that explains the
homogenization of the supraorganizational field
but ignores agency, deviance, or political adap-
tation (Friedland & Alford, 1991). This view fails
to explain the patterns of institutional arenas or
the conditions under which new institutional
forms develop or are deinstitutionalized (Fried-
I thank Jeffrey Ford and three anonymous reviewers for
their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. I
also thank Craig Keys, Thomas Cummings, Nitin Nohria, Jay
Lorsch, Brian Joseph, Benjamin Berger, Paul Adler, and Ian
Mitroff. All remaining errors and omissions are entirely my
own.
? Academy of Management Review
2004, Vol. 29, No. 4, 653–669.
653
land & Alford, 1991; Greenwood, Suddaby, &
Hinings, 2002; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991).
The cause and solution to these problems may
rest with the ways in which discourse and its
relationship to social action are conceptualized
(Alvesson & Ka¨ rreman, 2000; Astley & Zammuto,
1992; Gergen & Thatchenkery, 1996). Rhetorical
theory has been underutilized in organizational
studies and, thus, may contribute to this field of
inquiry. The central purpose of this article is to
introduce rhetorical theory into the study of dif-
fusion and demonstrate its utility for reconcep-
tualizing discourse and social action. Rhetoric is
a type of instrumental discourse used to per-
suade audiences, reach reliable judgments or
decisions, and coordinate social action (Bizzell &
Herzberg, 1990; Gill & Whedbee, 1997; Herrick,
2001). Rhetorical theory emphasizes how social
actors’ cognitive limits enable language to
shape both the means and ends of their actions
(Bizzell & Herzberg, 1990; Guthrie, 1993; Kerferd,
1993; Richards, 1965). Through rhetoric, actors
produce and assign meaning, constructing both
their identities and the world (Billig, 1996; Booth,
1974; Quinn, 1996).
A rhetorical perspective suggests that manag-
ers play an active role in the diffusion process,
because what managers say and how they say it
matter a great deal (Eccles et al., 1992; Elsbach,
1994; Pfeffer, 1981). This perspective reconceptu-
alizes diffusion as a product of rhetoric, because
rhetoric can influence the motives driving firms
to adopt innovations and shape the social struc-
ture through which those practices diffuse. Con-
ceptualizing diffusion as a rhetorical process
gives support to ideas held by management
scholars who conceptualize the manager as
rhetor (Eccles et al., 1992). This view emphasizes
the linguistic origins of rationality and institu-
tions. To rationalize is to give discursive reasons
for actions; to institutionalize is to accept and
take these reasons for granted. This makes lan-
guage central to understanding variations in
the diffusion and institutionalization of mana-
gerial practices and suggests a more active con-
ceptualization of discourse and social action.
In this article I first describe the basic as-
sumptions underlying a rhetorical perspective
and then develop a rhetorical theory of diffu-
sion. My central argument is that the type and
sequence of discursive justifications determine
the speed and extent of diffusion that a practice
achieves and, ultimately, shape the degree of
taken-for-grantedness that the practice attains.
Finally, I discuss the implications of this per-
spective for theory and research.
A RHETORICAL THEORY OF DIFFUSION
In this section I develop a rhetorical theory of
diffusion. I first describe the rhetorical perspec-
tive and then reconceptualize diffusion as a
product of rhetoric. Specifically, discursive jus-
tifications establish the appropriateness and ra-
tionality of adoption and, ultimately, its degree
of taken-for-grantedness. I use this rhetorical
conception of diffusion to develop a proposition
that differentiates the breadth of diffusion from
the degree of institutionalization. Finally, I elab-
orate on what this means for our understanding
of institutions, institutionalization, and institu-
tional change.
A Rhetorical Perspective
The linguistic turn in organizational studies
emphasizes the vital role of language in under-
standing organizations (Alvesson & Ka¨ rreman,
2000; Dandridge, Mitroff, & Joyce, 1980; Ford &
Ford, 1995; Pondy & Mitroff, 1979; Zald, 1996).
Previous research has shown that managers are
essentially discursive beings, spending two-
thirds to three-fourths of their time engaged in
verbal activity (Mintzberg, 1973). Managers use
this constant verbal activity to gather informa-
tion, develop shared understandings of the
world, and persuade individuals to contribute to
collective purposes, such as the adoption and
implementation of new practices. Managers
hear and use all kinds of arguments to elicit
action and describe the world. However, most
managers are unaware of the ways in which
their language influences social action (Eccles
et al., 1992).
Several theories, ranging fromdiscourse anal-
ysis (van Dijk, 1997; Fairclough, 1992; Grant,
Keenoy, & Oswick, 1998) to social construction
(Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Gergen & Thatchen-
kery, 1996; Weick, 1972), address the relationship
of language to social action. Recently, organiza-
tional researchers have increased their interest
in rhetorical theory as an additional lens
through which to understand organizational ac-
tions and phenomena (Abrahamson, 1997; Abra-
hamson & Fairchild, 1999; Barley & Kunda, 1992;
654 October Academy of Management Review
Eccles et al., 1992; Gill & Whedbee, 1997; Huff,
1983; Watson, 1995; Zbaracki, 1998).
Although rhetorical theory is broad and com-
plex, the rhetorical perspective I use here incor-
porates the strong compatibilist perspective, as
well as many of its underlying assumptions and
goals (O’Neill, 1997). In the compatibilist per-
spective, reason and rhetoric are compatible
and inextricably linked, because reason en-
compasses both the logic of demonstrative
argument—premises that are self-evidently
true—and the rhetoric of dialectical argument—
premises based on endoxa or opinions that are
generally accepted (O’Neill, 1997). For the strong
compatibilist, the inseparability of rhetoric and
reason undermines traditional notions of objec-
tive truth and atomistic instrumental ration-
ality—not to embrace relativism or irrationalism
but to advocate an embedded and intersubjec-
tive rationality (McCloskey, 1998; O’Neill, 1997;
Quinn, 1996).
The Role of Rhetoric in Diffusion
A rhetorical perspective that denies a distinc-
tion between reason and rhetoric may have pro-
found implications for theories of diffusion. Most
models of diffusion suggest that adoption of
new practices and structures is driven by the
intrinsic merits of the innovation and/or the
characteristics of potential adopters (King & Ku-
gler, 2000; Rogers, 1995; Strang & Macy, 2001).
These perspectives underemphasize the role of
rhetoric in the diffusion process (Abrahamson &
Fairchild, 1999; Hirsch, 1986; King & Kugler, 2000;
Strang & Meyer, 1994). Actors are seen as adopt-
ing new practices and structures because they
are effective (Strang & Macy, 2001). Yet such
views rest on the assumption that new practices
do not actually have to be effective—actors only
have to believe they are beneficial (Krackhardt,
2001; Strang & Macy, 2001). A rhetorical view
asserts that these beliefs do not emerge within a
social vacuum; they are rhetorically shaped and
promoted by organizational actors (King & Ku-
gler, 2000; Zbaracki, 1998). Thus, managers
championing the adoption of new practices pro-
vide discursive justifications that rationalize
and legitimize the new practices’ adoption (King
& Kugler, 2000; Strang & Meyer, 1994; Tolbert &
Zucker, 1996). Moreover, newpractices and struc-
tures may only be efficient and effective when
supporting rhetoric rationalizes the usefulness
of their adoption (Hirsch, 1986).
From a rhetorical perspective, such rationality
is influenced by our ability to give reasons and,
thus, link claims with justifications. Specifically,
managers, in conversation with themselves and
others, rationalize the adoption of managerial
practices. This formulation resonates with argu-
ments that rationality is discursively produced
(Garfinkel, 1967; Gergen, 1994; Gergen & Thatch-
enkery, 1996; Habermas, 1984; Quinn, 1996; Rorty,
1980; Wittgenstein, 1963). To be rational is to
make persuasive sense. Accordingly, the more
persuasive the discursive reasons supporting a
managerial practice, the more rational its adop-
tion. Moreover, as these reasons become more
accepted and taken for granted, managerial
practices become more institutionalized.
Justifying Diffusion and the Production of
Taken-for-Grantedness
The main concern in a rhetorical theory of
diffusion is how variation in discursive reasons
persuades actors to adopt new practices and
how, over time, the persuasiveness of these jus-
tifications shapes the way practices become
taken for granted. This emphasizes the impor-
tance of taken-for-grantedness as a direct prod-
uct of persuasiveness. Taken-for-grantedness is
a phenomenological concept with many differ-
ent connotations (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Jep-
person, 1991; Zucker, 1991). Here, it means “to
accept until further notice our knowledge of cer-
tain states of affairs as unquestionably plausi-
ble” (Schutz, 1962: 326). Rhetorical theory sug-
gests that as the persuasiveness of discourse
increases, the production of taken-for-granted-
ness increases.
Before a managerial practice can become
takenfor granted, it must first makesense. Sense-
making involves justifying a practice within an
argumentative or linguistic context (Bakhtin,
1981; Billig, 1996; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca,
1969). Justifications establish appropriateness
and rationality (Lamertz & Baum, 1998); they le-
gitimate and connect a practice to nature and
reason (Douglas, 1986). Justifications are ac-
tively developed from endoxa, or that which is
commonly believed and taken for granted (Aris-
totle, 1991; Herrick, 2001). Specifically, a man-
ager hoping to justify the adoption of a new
practice scans the commonly held assumptions
2004 655 Green
or “taken-for-granteds” of his or her audience to
produce justifications that support his or her
claim about the practice. These justifications
are then used by managers to shape the produc-
tion of that which will be taken for granted in
the future. This rhetorical framework provides a
view of how managers actively shape yet are
simultaneously influenced by their symbolic
environments.
Only individuals make justifications; how-
ever, we can conceptualize justifications as rep-
resenting the dominant concerns of individuals
in firms, classes, or industries. Thus, an industry
might make a justification through individuals’
expression of a dominant or widely held view.
We might measure changes in justifications in a
group of managers within a firm, or in a group of
managers across firms. Examples of where we
might observe these justifications are such ex-
ternal sources as the business press or such
internal sources as prior adopters’ presentations
to analysts, shareholder meetings, and so forth
(King & Kugler, 2000; Strang & Soule, 1998).
The persuasiveness of a justification shapes
how easily and effectively people make sense of
it and, thus, how rapidly the new management
practice becomes accepted or taken for granted.
From a rhetorical perspective, evidence of ac-
ceptance is the lack of a need to linguistically
support the practice. Consequently, we can ex-
pect an increase in supportive justifications to
occur at the beginning of a managerial prac-
tice’s diffusion and prior to that practice’s
achieving taken-for-granted status. As the
practice becomes more widely diffused and ac-
cepted, the frequency and amount of justifica-
tion should decrease. This increase in justifica-
tion and diffusion, followed by a decrease in
justification without a corresponding decrease
in diffusion, indicates a process through which
the taken-for-grantedness of a new practice
emerges.
Figure 1 shows the behavioral and linguistic
implications of a rhetorical theory of diffusion.
This model represents the diffusion of a “single
practice across a single community (a relation-
ally and culturally connected population)”
(Strang & Soule, 1998: 279). The x-axis represents
time, while the first (left) y-axis signifies the
percentage of firms within a population that
have adopted a managerial practice and the
second (right) y-axis shows the amount of justi-
fication supporting a managerial practice. The
diffusion line represents the actual incidence of
behavioral adoption of a managerial practice
and is read against the first y-axis. The justifi-
cation line represents the occurrences of lin-
guistic arguments supporting the adoption of
the practice and is read against the second y-
axis.
Figure 1 shows that an increase in diffusion
combined with a decrease in justifications ap-
proximates an increase in the level of
taken-for-grantedness. This suggests that the
more compelling and convincing a justification
supporting a managerial practice is, the less the
justification needs to be repeated or sustained
in order to maintain the practice.
FIGURE 1
A Rhetorical Theory of Diffusion
656 October Academy of Management Review
Critical examination of the relationship of
justifications and diffusion provides a clearer
understanding of institutionalization as both a
process and a state. Specifically, institutional-
ization may take place at many levels (e.g., the
individual organizational level or the aggregate
level of the organizational field). Over a given
period of time, changes in the breadth of diffu-
sion or number of justifications represent the
process by which a pattern of action becomes
taken for granted or institutionalized. Con-
versely, at any point in time, the breadth of
diffusion relative to the number of justifications
represents the state or degree of taken-for-
grantedness or institutionalization. For in-
stance, the highest degree of institutionalization
is an ideal state of perfect taken-for-granted-
ness. This reflects 100 percent diffusion of the
practice, with no discursive justifications. Con-
necting these ideas suggests the following
proposition.
Proposition 1: The degree of taken-for-
grantedness of a managerial practice
will be positively related to its
breadth of diffusion and negatively
related to the number of justifications
supporting it.
A Rhetorical View of Diffusion and Our
Understanding of Institutions
Proposition 1 enables us to disentangle taken-
for-grantedness from diffusion and to develop a
clearer understanding of institutions, institu-
tionalization, and institutional change.
Institutions. Institutionalized practices are
those that have become infused with value be-
yond the technical requirements of the task at
hand(DiMaggio &Powell, 1983; Oliver, 1992; Selz-
nick, 1957). Proposition 1 suggests that in the
early stage of institutionalization, when adop-
tion and justifications are both increasing, jus-
tifications are actively legitimating and shap-
ing beliefs that the new practices solve
recurring practical problems (Berger & Luck-
mann, 1966; Homans, 1961; Schutz, 1962). This is
consistent with Suchman’s (1995) description of
pragmatic and moral legitimation as discursive
processes that tend to occur early in the institu-
tionalization process (Greenwood et al., 2002;
Suchman, 1995), as well as neoinstitutional ac-
counts that early adopters are initially driven by
technical/efficiency considerations (Strang &
Macy, 2001; Tolbert & Zucker, 1983; Westphal,
Gulati, & Shortell, 1997).
Over time, computational and attention limits
(Simon, 1945) require a reduction in the cognitive
resources attending to the practice; justifica-
tions decrease, and the practice’s value comes
to be taken for granted. This supports Such-
man’s (1995) idea that cognitive legitimacy rep-
resents a lack of discursive justification (Such-
man, 1995: 584–585), as well as neoinstitutional
formulations that suggest cognitive legitimacy
is produced in the later stages of institutional-
ization (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994; Greenwood et al.,
2002; Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). In short, in the early
process or stage of institutionalization, the prac-
tice is discursively asserted to have value and,
thus, taken-for-grantedness is low (Greenwood
et al., 2002; Suchman, 1995). In the later stages of
institutionalization, discourse justifying the
value of the practice decreases and taken-for-
grantedness is high (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994; Green-
wood et al., 2002; Jepperson, 1991; Suchman,
1995).
Within this framework, the state or degree of
institutionalization is equivalent to the degree
of taken-for-grantedness (see Figure 1). Scholars
note that many things can be taken for granted
and that taken-for-grantedness can assume sev-
eral different forms (Jepperson, 1991: 147–152).
However, institutionalization is a special type of
taken-for-grantedness, where the value of a
practice is presumed (Jepperson, 1991; Selznick,
1957). Specifically, decreases in justifications
may represent a practice that is taken for
granted because actors are unaware and have
forgotten why it adds value (Jepperson, 1991).
Alternatively, decreases in justifications may
represent a practice where actors unquestion-
ably accept the practice’s value because they
lack conscious alternatives (Jepperson, 1991). In
either case, justifications have woven a belief
about the practice’s value into the community’s
general web of belief (Quine & Ullian, 1978). The
practice appears appropriate and proper and,
thus, infused with value beyond its initial tech-
nical requirements.
Although a rhetorical theory of diffusion reso-
nates in many ways with neoinstitutional ac-
counts of diffusion, an important difference in-
volves the production of legitimacy and its role
in future adoption. Both neoinstitutional (DiMag-
gio & Powell, 1983; Tolbert & Zucker, 1983) and
2004 657 Green
rhetorical explanations propose that legitimacy
increases future adoption. But neoinstitutional
accounts assume a positive relationship be-
tween prior adoption and the production of le-
gitimacy (Greenwood et al., 2002; Haunschild &
Miner, 1997; March & Heath, 1994; Meyer &
Rowan, 1991; Tolbert & Zucker, 1996), whereas
rhetorical theory emphasizes how justifications
shape legitimacy.
Both formulations can explain the up-phase in
diffusion as either an increase in prior adoption
or the outcome of persuasive justifications, but
neoinstitutional accounts cannot explain why
faddish practices can suddenly develop a neg-
ative relationship between prior adoption and
legitimacy (Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999;
Kieser, 1997; Macy & Strang, 2001). This problem
may arise because neoinstitutional explana-
tions imply a perpetual dominance of norms of
conformity, where prior adoption always pro-
duces legitimacy. The management fashion lit-
erature qualifies this claim by suggesting that
sometimes norms of progress can dominate, cre-
ating a negative relationship between prior
adoption and legitimacy (Abrahamson, 1996;
Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999). Yet why one
norm dominates another is left unexplained
(Kieser, 1997).
A rhetorical theory of diffusion, however, sug-
gests prior adoption can be discursively inter-
preted in multiple ways. One manager may
justify a popular managerial technique as stan-
dard industry practice and, hence, worthy of the
firm’s adoption, whereas another may question
its utility by describing the practice as just an-
other “flavor of the month,” incapable of differ-
entiating the firm or increasing its competitive
capabilities. In short, a rhetorical view concep-
tualizes legitimacy as an active product of man-
agerial discourse, whereas many neoinstitu-
tional accounts conceive of legitimacy as a
product of prior adoption.
Institutionalization. Proposition 1 also im-
proves our understanding of institutionalization.
Neoinstitutionalists often proxy the cognitive
form of legitimacy—taken-for-grantedness
(Scott, 1995; Suchman, 1995)—with previous
adoption (Davis, 1991; Davis & Greve, 1997; Flig-
stein, 1985; Palmer, Jennings, & Zhou, 1993). This
conflates diffusion with institutionalization—
the process by which a pattern of action be-
comes taken for granted (Meyer, Boli, & Thomas,
1994). Neoinstitutionalists suggest that highly
diffused practices are highly institutionalized
(Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999; Lawrence, Winn,
& Jennings, 2001), and the abandonment of these
practices is associated with deinstitutionaliza-
tion (Lawrence et al., 2001; Oliver, 1992).
However, a management practice can be
highly adopted but not highly institutionalized.
For example, within the S&P 1500, over 50 per-
cent have adopted poison pills—a powerful
takeover defense used to influence a change-of-
control in the firm (Green, 2001). Although this
managerial practice is highly diffused, high
rates of justification are required to maintain its
adoption. This is because the practice is highly
contested and far from institutionalized for var-
ious constituents (e.g., shareholders, manage-
ment, board, employees, debtholders) of the firm
(Green, 2001). Alternatively, highly institutional-
ized and highly adopted practices can begin to
deinstitutionalize, exhibiting increases in justi-
fication, while their level of adoption remains
high (e.g., affirmative action programs).
Institutional change. Decoupling diffusion
and taken-for-grantedness also provides a use-
ful indicator of when institutional change is
more or less likely to occur. Proposition 1 implies
that changes in the level of justification may be
predictors of institutional change and measures
of institutional stability. From this perspective,
we can make predictions based on a theoreti-
cally limited set of discursive conditions. For
example, when justifications are increasing
without a corresponding increase in diffusion,
institutional change is likely. Conversely, when
justifications are decreasing without a corre-
sponding decrease in diffusion, institutional
change is unlikely.
Increasing justifications without a corre-
sponding increase in diffusion represents a de-
cline in legitimacy and taken-for-grantedness
and, thus, an increase in the probability of insti-
tutional change. Specifically, when justifica-
tions rise without a corresponding rise in diffu-
sion, institutional orders may be in conflict,
signifying alternative and competing choices of
action. The justifications lack persuasiveness
and are unable to support continued adoption of
the practice. In this case, actors bring about
change, using the rules and symbols of alterna-
tive institutional logics to deviate from norma-
tive integration and to achieve individual, polit-
ical, and organizational variation (Friedland &
658 October Academy of Management Review
Alford, 1991; Giddens, 1979; Kuhn, 1996; Swid-
dler, 1979).
Conversely, when justifications are decreas-
ing without a corresponding decrease in diffu-
sion, two possible cases exist. Either actors are
internalizing the rules and symbols of their so-
cial system, thus allowing the production of or-
der, conformity, and institutional stability, or the
powerful are forcing the adoption of the practice
while simultaneously prohibiting public debate.
In both cases, the probability of institutional
change is very low. In the first instance, actors
do not perceive a need to change, and in the
second, they do not have the power to imple-
ment change.
RHETORICAL JUSTIFICATIONS
In this section I describe how variation in rhe-
torical justifications shapes the diffusion pro-
cess. I first describe three distinct types of rhe-
torical justifications and develop propositions
that describe their effect on the rate of adoption
and rejection of managerial practices. While
any of these types of appeals may be used in
various sequences to influence diffusion, for the
sake of space, I delineate one prevalent and
influential sequence. I conclude with a descrip-
tion of how these propositions increase our un-
derstanding of the active role of managers in the
production of rationality and diffusion.
Type and Sequence of Justification
The pace of adoption and the rejection of man-
agerial practices are important issues for the
study of diffusion and institutionalization (Law-
rence et al., 2001). A rhetorical theory of diffusion
provides a useful conceptual basis to theorize
about these issues. Specifically, the rhetorical
model developed in Proposition 1 enables us to
correlate the content or type of justification with
the rate and extent of diffusion. This correlation
indicates the persuasiveness of each type of
justification and is measured by the degree of
taken-for-grantedness exhibited by the practice
over time.
Although justifications can take on many dif-
ferent forms (Bies, 1987; Elsbach, 1994; Hirsch-
man, 1991; Lamertz & Baum, 1998; Scott & Lyman,
1968; Semin & Manstead, 1983), rhetorical theo-
rists propose three main types: pathos, logos,
and ethos (Aristotle, 1991; Bizzell & Herzberg,
1990; Herrick, 2001; King & Kugler, 2000; Nohria &
Harrington, 1994). Pathos justifications impact
emotions and are likely to elicit powerful yet
unsustainable social action. They may be used,
for example, to justify a particular course of ac-
tion based on a listener’s sense of greed or fear.
Logos appeals affect the logical part of the
mind; they tend to elicit methodical calculation
of means and ends to achieve efficiency or ef-
fectiveness. Ethos justifications impact moral or
ethical sensibilities. They may require sacrific-
ing self-interests for honor, tradition, or justice
and are often elicited by the character or credi-
bility of the speaker (Bizzell & Herzberg, 1990;
Herrick, 2001). Moreover, pathos and logos pleas
produce pragmatic legitimacy and appeal to an
audience’s self-interests, whereas ethos justifi-
cations produce moral legitimacy and appeal to
normative approval and moral propriety (Such-
man, 1995). Over time, if these appeals are per-
suasively effective, they will produce cognitive
legitimacy—taken-for-grantedness.
At any given time, a justification may contain
all three types of appeals and may be positive or
negative. For the purpose of exploring how each
appeal affects the speed and breadth of diffu-
sion, as well as the sequence of appeals, I dis-
cuss only pure and positive appeals below.
Pathos. Pathos appeals connect with the emo-
tions of individuals (e.g., fear, greed, etc.). They
are highly passionate appeals to an audience’s
self-interest that build and construct pragmatic
legitimacy (Suchman, 1995). Rhetorical theory
suggests that actors have cognitive and atten-
tion limits (Bizzell & Herzberg, 1990; Guthrie,
1993; Kerferd, 1993; Richards, 1965); thus, individ-
ual resistance and group conformity hinder
change efforts like the adoption of new practices
(Simon, 1945). Emotional appeals have the abil-
ity to grab an actor’s limited attention, excite the
imagination, and direct behavior away from the
status quo (King & Kugler, 2000).
Although initially persuasive, emotional ap-
peals are unable to sustain the limited attention
of actors. Thus, practices associated with emo-
tional appeals have transient persuasive power
that may exhibit fadlike tendencies (Abraham-
son & Fairchild, 1999). Applying these ideas to
diffusion suggests the following.
Proposition 2: A managerial practice
supported with pathos justifications
2004 659 Green
will have a fast rate of adoption and a
fast rate of rejection.
Logos. Logos pleas justify action by appealing
to the desire for efficient/effective action and,
like pathos, help build pragmatic legitimacy
(Suchman, 1995). Whereas pathos appeals are
capable of eliciting strong initial reactions,
logos justifications are slower at getting actors’
attention, because they often require methodical
calculation of means and ends (Simon, 1945).
Initially, the call for efficiency/effectiveness is
less powerful than a pathos appeal (like fear).
However, whereas passionate pleas tend to dis-
sipate quickly, appeals to logic are able to sus-
tain their persuasiveness.
Compared to pathos, logos appeals have a
slower yet more sustained effect on diffusion,
partly because they are socially accepted and
admired within the business community (Put-
nam & Mumby, 1993). Although logos pleas have
a slower persuasive force than pathos appeals,
their focus on individual interests gives them a
faster effect on persuasion than ethos appeals.
Similarly, logos appeals sustain their persua-
sive effect longer than pathos appeals, yet their
social acceptance and, thus, sustainability are
less than that of ethos appeals. Therefore, man-
agement practices associated with logos ap-
peals should diffuse and be abandoned at
slower rates than those supported with pathos
appeals, yet at faster rates than ethos appeals.
Proposition 3: A managerial practice
supported with logos justifications
will have a medium rate of adoption
and a medium rate of rejection.
Ethos. Ethos appeals justify action by appeal-
ing to socially accepted norms and mores. They
produce moral legitimacy that “rests not on
judgments about whether a given activity ben-
efits the evaluator, but rather on judgments
about whether the activity is the ‘right thing to
do’” (Suchman, 1995: 579). Ethos appeals are
probably the most powerful, with the most en-
during impact on taken-for-grantedness (Aristo-
tle, 1991; Herrick, 2001). Whereas pathos and
logos justifications emphasize individual con-
cerns and interests, ethos appeals focus on so-
cial and collective interests. This emphasis pro-
longs the time required for ethos pleas to have
persuasive effects, because they typically re-
quire more complex cognitive processing than
direct appeals to individual interests. Ethos ap-
peals may also have a slower persuasive affect
because they require the sacrifice of individual
interests for social interests.
Although ethos appeals are initially slow to
persuade, once an ethos-supported practice is
adopted, it becomes difficult to abandon. In a
sense, social practices supported by ethos ap-
peals become synonymous with what is right
and what is good.
Proposition 4: A managerial practice
supported with ethos justifications
will have a slow rate of adoption and
a slow rate of rejection.
The sequence of rhetoric. Pathos, logos, and
ethos appeals may combine to shape the speed
and extent of diffusion. Specifically, these three
types suggest a rhetorical sequence for highly
diffused managerial practices, starting with pa-
thos, followed by logos, and ending with ethos
justifications. Each type of appeal has particular
characteristics that resonate with specific peri-
ods in the life cycle of diffusion. Pathos pleas
are based on emotion and, in the beginning of
the diffusion process, can capture potential
adopters’ limited attention and willingness to
act. Although emotional energy can help liber-
ate social inertia, it is unlikely to persist. Fortu-
nately, logos appeals can provide managers
with persuasive arguments for continuing to
adopt managerial practices. Appealing to the
desire for effectiveness and efficiency, logos ap-
peals sustain their persuasive power longer
than pathos appeals, in large part because
these arguments tend to be more socially ac-
cepted and admired by management than emo-
tional ones. During the middle stages of diffu-
sion, for example, logos justifications can
promote beliefs that the managerial practice
works and achieves stated goals, thus encour-
aging managers to continue adopting it. Finally,
ethos arguments have the longest-lasting per-
suasive effects. Managerial practices supported
by ethos appeals become synonymous with
what is right and good. They become deeply
entrenched and difficult to reject. Thus, ethos
arguments can sustain the adoption of manage-
rial practices that have lost their emotional or
logical appeal.
Organizational theorists may observe a simi-
lar process when they describe successful
change efforts. For instance, Kurt Lewin and
660 October Academy of Management Review
Dorwin Cartwright (1964) argued that successful
change in organizations should follow three
steps: (1) unfreezing the status quo—change ef-
forts to overcome the pressures of both individ-
ual and group conformity; (2) moving to the new
state—new behaviors adopted and old behav-
iors discarded; and (3) refreezing the new
change to make it permanent—stabilizing a
change intervention by balancing driving and
restraining forces. Pathos appeals help direct
behavior away from the status quo. Logos ap-
peals link new actions and behaviors to effec-
tive outcomes. Ethos appeals lock in new behav-
iors and hinder movement from the new
equilibrium.
Whereas pathos may initiate change, logos
implement it, and ethos sustain it, each type of
appeal may fit with specific periods in the life
cycle of a highly diffused practice. Preliminary
evidence supports the plausibility of this rhetor-
ical sequence. In a longitudinal study of the
adoption of corporate takeover defenses in
North America, I (Green, 2001) found that this
popular and highly diffused set of corporate
governance practices started with pathos justi-
fications in response to the fear that corporate
raiders would pillage the firm. Next, takeover
defenses were dominated by logos justifica-
tions, which asserted that they helped board
members maximize shareholder value and at-
tain the highest price for the firm. Finally, at
takeover defenses’ broadest levels of diffusion,
their adoption was most highly correlated with
ethos justifications, which asserted that take-
over defenses helped board members perform
their duty of protecting stakeholder rights.
A similar pattern appears in the diffusion of
total quality management (TQM) in the United
States—an admired and highly adopted set of
managerial techniques (Lawler, Mohrman, & Le-
ford, 1992). TQM was initially justified with pa-
thos arguments that predicted American busi-
ness obsolescence in the face of Japanese
economic aggression (Easton, 1993). Next, it was
supported with logos appeals, which argued
that TQM was a useful and effective managerial
practice for improving firm performance (Lawler
& Mohrman, 1985). Later, ethos justifications de-
scribed how TQM contributed to democratic ide-
als through employee teamwork and participa-
tion in work decisions (Lawler et al., 1992). This
preliminary evidence and the ideas discussed
above suggest the following proposition.
Proposition 5: A managerial practice
for which the diffusion process follows
a rhetorical sequence that starts with
pathos, moves to logos, and ends with
ethos will have a rapid rate of initial
adoption, a broad diffusion, and a
slow abandonment.
Rhetorical Justifications and Our View of
Rationality and Diffusion
Rhetoric, rationality, and the diffusion pro-
cess. Propositions 2 through 5 suggest that ra-
tionality and, thus, the choices of potential
adopters are discursive products. This is a rad-
ical change from traditional models of diffusion
(neoinstitutional, efficiency, and network), in
which it is assumed that rationality is shaped
by such factors as social relations, markets, pro-
fessions, competition, the state, social catego-
ries/concepts, and/or fashion markets (Abraham-
son, 1996; Burt, 1987; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983;
Douglas, 1986; Granovetter, 1985; Scott, 1995; Si-
mon, 1945; Strang & Macy, 2001; Strang & Meyer,
1994). These models are inherently adaptivist
because they assume that firms adopt new prac-
tices in order to fulfill the need to acquire re-
sources in the technoeconomic environment or
to conform normatively to the social environ-
ment (Hasselbladh & Kallinikos, 2000; Hassel-
bladh & Theodoridis, 1997). Traditional models
also fail to explain why those needs exist or
become influential, or why a particular structure
fulfills the need in question (Perrow, 1993). The
assumption in these models is that practices
that satisfy needs are meaningful, and, thus, the
adoption of these practices is rational. Yet these
formulations underemphasize an actor’s capac-
ity to linguistically construct meaning and, thus,
obfuscate important facets of organizational life
(Pondy & Mitroff, 1979).
In contrast, proponents of a rhetorical per-
spective argue that organizational actors are
capable of changing what they find meaningful
(Aristotle, 1991; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca,
1969; Quinn, 1996; Toulmin, 1969). They can sup-
press what are ostensibly the most dominant of
needs and participate in hunger strikes, vows of
celibacy, and suicide bombings. Thus, actors
may find meaningful that which they need, but
may also need that which they find meaningful
(Booth, 1974; Husserl, 1962; Rubin, 1998). The de-
sire to survive, acquire material wealth and sta-
2004 661 Green
tus, or outperform one’s competitors does not
rationalize the adoption of managerial prac-
tices. Managers using pathos, logos, and ethos
in conversation with themselves and others
rationalize the adoption of a managerial prac-
tice and, thus, determine its ultimate breadth of
diffusion.
Another important distinction between a rhe-
torical model of diffusion and traditional models
is their differing conceptions of the components
of rationality. For example, a rhetorical perspec-
tive suggests that emotional justifications (pa-
thos) are an essential component of reasoned
argument, as opposed to irrational impediments
to decision making (Herrick, 2001; O’Neill, 1997).
Culturally, the West has chosen to emphasize
the logical aspects of rationality (Putnam &
Mumby, 1993); however, a rhetorical view re-
minds us that we also calculate with our emo-
tions, suggesting that emotions and rationality
are interpenetrated (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995;
Damasio, 1994; Domagalski, 1999; Fineman,
1996).
This is contrary to traditional diffusion per-
spectives that treat emotions as pejorative and
distinct from rationality (Domagalski, 1999; Put-
nam & Mumby, 1993). The management fashion
literature, for example, suggests that practices
adopted for emotional or social psychological
reasons cause managers to irrationally partici-
pate in superstitious learning, adopting and re-
jecting useless solutions to imaginary problems
(Abrahamson, 1996; Abrahamson & Fairchild,
1999). Accordingly, management practices
driven by technoeconomic forces are favored in
this literature over those motivated by sociopsy-
chological and emotional forces (Abrahamson,
1996). Yet sometimes managers may need to
elicit quick and fast action. Firms may be faced
with so much organizational inertia or compla-
cency that emotional appeals are the only effec-
tive way to get actors’ attention and to get en-
ergy mobilized for change. These ideas resonate
with descriptions of successful social and polit-
ical movements that often use emotional ap-
peals to elicit effective social action (Gamson &
Meyer, 1996; Hirschman, 1991). A rhetorical the-
ory of diffusion in general, and Propositions 2
and 5 in particular, suggest that emotional ap-
peals can be effective, appropriate, and rational
components of the adoption decision.
Similarly, a rhetorical perspective empha-
sizes the importance of discourse about ethics in
adoption decisions. Traditional models of diffu-
sion often overemphasize the importance of the
logical aspects of rationality, at the expense of
ethical and moral sensibilities. Failing to recall
the Ford Pinto and systemically hiding the ef-
fects of tobacco are prime examples of where
managers may have overemphasized the logi-
cal components of their decision making and,
thus, adopted practices lacking sufficient moral
and ethical reasoning (Birsch & Fielder, 1994;
Mitroff & Anagnos, 2000). Propositions 4 and 5
highlight the important role ethics plays in the
spread and stability of organizational practices.
Rhetoric and the active role of managers. A
rhetorical theory of diffusion proposes that insti-
tutional change and stability are functions of
rhetorical strategies, suggesting a view of diffu-
sion that includes an active role for the man-
ager, without being too undersocialized. Manag-
ers are seen as constructing justifications from
endoxa—commonly held or taken-for-granted
premises. These appeals are then used to sup-
port, advocate, and implement new behaviors
and ideas, which, if successful, may themselves
become taken for granted. This explains how
culture and discourse, with their complex web of
commonly accepted premises and meanings, re-
strict the choices available to actors (Aristotle,
1991; Burke, 1969; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca,
1969; Quine & Ullian, 1978). Yet a rhetorical per-
spective also underscores the indeterminacy
and agentic possibilities of organizational life
and, thus, the ability of proactive managers to
use commonly accepted premises in new and
inventive ways to modify available choices (Ar-
istotle, 1991; Burke, 1969; Perelman & Olbrechts-
Tyteca, 1969; Quine & Ullian, 1978; Wittgenstein,
1963).
In sum, a rhetorical perspective restores
agency. Rhetoric is used more or less artfully to
change things, so it is rich precisely where the-
ory is most needed: the interconnection of struc-
ture and agency. The application of a rhetorical
perspective to diffusion is just an illustration of
this more general point.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In this section I first discuss the implications
of a rhetorical theory of diffusion for our under-
standing of diffusion and the behavior of
organizations. I then describe potential future
research within the context of the model pre-
662 October Academy of Management Review
sented. I conclude with a discussion of the main
points of a rhetorical theory of diffusion and
highlight the importance of studying language
for organizational research.
Implications of a Rhetorical Theory of
Diffusion
A rhetorical theory of diffusion enhances our
understanding of how managerial practices dif-
fuse. Managers and managerial scientists
spend enormous resources and energy search-
ing for and creating new practices. Some of
these practices thrive and become broadly dif-
fused and accepted, whereas others dissipate
and disappear as fast as they arrive. Although
organizational scholars propose that diffusion is
shaped by a variety of factors (Greve, 1995; Ol-
iver, 1992; O’Neill et al., 1998), most of their ex-
planations gravitate toward realist concerns
while underemphasizing the role of linguistic
factors (Strang & Meyer, 1994). Moreover, neoin-
stitutionalists often emphasize the persistence
and endurance of diffused practices while ig-
noring their dissipation and rejection (Oliver,
1992). In contrast, a rhetorical theory of diffusion
shows how the spread and dissipation of man-
agerial practices depend on the sequence and
type of rhetoric. Specifically, pathos, logos, and
ethos justifications shape the rationality under-
lying both the adoption and rejection of mana-
gerial practices.
A rhetorical theory of diffusion also highlights
the active role of managers in organizational
change and behavior. For instance, neoinstitu-
tionalists assume that managers’ cognitive and
attention limits allow their rationality to be
shaped by the organizational environment
(Powell & DiMaggio, 1991). Within this frame-
work, managers passively adhere to the domi-
nant cultural and discursive guidelines of legit-
imate behavior (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Powell
& DiMaggio, 1991). In contrast, a rhetorical per-
spective emphasizes how actors’ cognitive lim-
its enable the agentic use of discourse (Bizzell &
Herzberg, 1990; Guthrie, 1993; Kerferd, 1993; Rich-
ards, 1965). From a rhetorical perspective, cogni-
tive limits allow for the active and intentional
use of discourse to construct organizational
problems, solutions, and goals. This resonates
with more agentic conceptions of managers,
cognitive limits, and discourse (Ford & Ford,
1995; Friedland & Alford, 1991; Oswick, Keenoy,
& Grant, 1997; Perrow, 1993).
Implications for Future Research
Finally, rhetorical theory identifies several
critical areas for future research. A popular per-
spective in diffusion theory emphasizes the role
of social structure in shaping diffusion patterns
(Burt, 1987; Coleman, Katz, & Menzel, 1966;
Granovetter & Soong, 1983; Macy & Strang, 2001;
Schelling, 1978; Strang & Meyer, 1994; Valente,
1996). The rhetorical view suggests a more rad-
ical conceptualization of social structure in the
diffusion process. Instead of an assumption that
social structure is independent of and exists
prior to rhetoric, social structure is seen as
something that is shaped and constructed by
discourse.
For example, the rhetoric of TQM advocates
that firms adopting TQM change both the struc-
ture and content of their supplier relationships.
The rhetoric of TQM encourages firms to choose
supplier relationships based on quality as op-
posed to just price and to decrease the total
number of suppliers in favor of a smaller set of
long-term relationships (Deming, 1986; Hackman
& Wageman, 1995; Ishikawa, 1985; Juran, 1974).
TQM rhetoric also admonishes firms to decrease
the variation in their production process by de-
manding that firms supplying important inputs
adopt TQM practices and procedures (Deming,
1986; Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Ishikawa,
1985; Juran, 1974). This TQM rhetoric constructs
and shapes social structure and, thus, the diffu-
sion of the practice itself.
Many ideologies in our society demonstrate
similar rhetorical properties. For instance, the
rhetoric of proselytizing religions like Christian-
ity suggests that telling others about Christian-
ity is a good deed that can increase the chance
of getting to heaven. Thus, adherents to the
Christian faith are rhetorically encouraged to
engage in missionary and proselytizing activi-
ties that create and establish new social rela-
tionships in order to further spread Christian
beliefs and practices (Dawkins, 1976; Lynch,
1996). In future studies researchers could exam-
ine the rhetorical viral and mimetic properties of
managerial discourse.
A second critical area for future research con-
cerns the relationship between rhetoric and out-
comes. Several organizational theorists have
2004 663 Green
commented on how discourse may bring perfor-
mance gaps to the attention of managers and
shape their beliefs about the efficacy of partic-
ular managerial practices (Abrahamson & Fair-
child, 1999; Strang, 1991; Zbaracki, 1998). At the
core of these descriptions is the assumption that
the speed and breadth of diffusion are positively
related to how well a managerial practice de-
creases performance gaps (Abrahamson, 1991;
O’Neill et al., 1998; Thirtle & Ruttan, 1987). A
rhetorical theory of diffusion is consistent with
the view that discourse shapes the beliefs and
attention of actors; however, it suggests that the
discourse justifying a practice may construct
the world in such a way that the “real” effects of
the practice conform to its description.
For example, managerial capitalism or man-
agerial control of the firm is legitimated by
discourse that suggests managers have supe-
rior knowledge of the firm. However, the very
nature of managerial control enables manag-
ers to accumulate the knowledge they are de-
scribed as having in the first place (Chandler,
1977; Green, 2001; Taylor, 1911). Even if man-
agers initially lack superior knowledge of the
firm, once they are in control, they use their
positions to acquire greater knowledge. Thus,
the legitimacy of their authority increases in a
positive feedback loop. In a sense, the rhetoric
of a new practice becomes the reality of that
practice. In future research scholars might ex-
amine the link between the rhetoric of a prac-
tice and the reality of that practice in order to
shed light on how language as a form of action
(Austin, 1975) shapes and affects organiza-
tions.
Additionally, a rhetorical theory of diffusion
has implications for research on the role of un-
certainty and power in the diffusion of manage-
rial practices. Many theorists have conceptual-
ized uncertainty as playing an important role in
the diffusion process (Abrahamson & Rosenkopf,
1993; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Haunschild &
Miner, 1997; March & Olsen, 1979; Pfeffer, Salan-
cik, & Leblebici, 1976; Rogers, 1995). Similarly, in
several studies researchers have elaborated on
the important role of power in the adoption of a
practice (Baron, Dobbin, & Jennings, 1986; Dob-
bin, Edelman, Meyer, Scott, & Swiddler, 1988;
Oliver, 1991; O’Neill et al., 1998). However, these
formulations underemphasize the effects of cog-
nitive limits on power (Perrow, 1993).
Rhetorical theory can increase understanding
of this process. If the cognitive limits of those in
power place them in an ambiguous and uncer-
tain world, then they might not know what ac-
tions actually benefit them (Perrow, 1993). They
might not know that certain courses of action
are more efficient than others. They may not
even know the potential of their own power. This
ambiguity allows for the influence of rhetori-
cally savvy consultants, academics, and corpo-
rate actors. Rhetorically gifted takeover entre-
preneurs can galvanize shareholders in the
takeover of the firm, and rhetorically adept
union leaders can persuade workers to organize
strikes and work stoppages. To the skillful rhet-
orician, the ambiguity social actors face is fer-
tile ground for the active construction of inter-
ests and the courses of action supporting them
(Gamson & Meyer, 1996; Hirschman, 1991). In fu-
ture studies researchers can clarify how rhetoric
mediates and shapes the role of power and un-
certainty in the diffusion process. This might
explain the spread of practices as varied as
employee stock ownership programs and hostile
two-tier bids.
Researchers might also examine the effect of
both positive and negative rhetoric within dis-
course. For instance, in the early stage of diffu-
sion, practices supported with positive pathos
rhetoric and criticized with negative ethos rhet-
oric may diffuse differently from practices sup-
ported with positive pathos rhetoric and criti-
cized with negative logos rhetoric. Laboratory
studies using variation in rhetorical justifica-
tions as interventions could shed light on these
dynamics. Additionally, further research is
needed to address the diffusion of practices
across heterogeneous populations or different
discursive environments, and whether the diffu-
sion of different types of practices is more or less
associated with different types of rhetorical jus-
tifications. Research is also needed to explore
the differences between the capacities of indi-
vidual actors to use or be moved by different
types of justifications. Understanding variation
in these individual capacities may provide im-
portant insight into diffusion, leadership, and
organizational change.
Conclusion
Rhetorical theory provides a unique analyti-
cal framework for the study of organizational
664 October Academy of Management Review
issues. Examining diffusion from a rhetorical
perspective enables the decoupling of diffusion
from institutionalization. It demonstrates that
highly adopted practices are not necessarily
highly institutionalized. Sometimes highly
adopted practices require justifications to main-
tain their adoption. At other times, practices are
highly adopted because those with power force
them on others.
Rhetorical theory also enhances the devel-
opment of diffusion measures and, therefore,
addresses limitations of existing diffusion the-
ories. For instance, in neoinstitutional theory
it is difficult to measure taken-for-grantedness,
which is a central feature of neoinstitutional
explanations (Donaldson, 1995; Hasselbladh &
Kallinikos, 2000; Zucker, 1987). Proposition 1 de-
fines the degree of taken-for-grantedness as a
function of two measurable constructs: diffusion
(percent of population adopting the practice)
and justifications (the number of appeals sup-
porting the practice). It also shows how different
types of justifications can produce different
types of legitimacy. By extending our ability to
focus on indicators of institutionalization, rhe-
torical theory provides a means to observe and
measure institutional forces at various levels of
analysis—from small groups to populations of
firms. It can also be applied to different types
of practices—from the adoption of new technol-
ogies to the adoption of structural forms.
Moreover, a rhetorical theory of diffusion al-
lows us to critically examine the dynamic rela-
tionship between justifications and diffusion
and, thus, understand institutionalization as
both a process and a state. Changes in the
breadth of diffusion or number of justifications
define the process by which a pattern of action
becomes taken for granted or institutionalized.
In addition, the breadth of diffusion relative to
the number of justifications represents the state
or degree of taken-for-grantedness or institu-
tionalization.
Most important, a rhetorical theory of diffu-
sion highlights the causal potency of language
in shaping organizational life and behavior. It
advocates the study and use of language for
helping researchers better understand organi-
zations. Moreover, rhetorical theory portrays the
manager as rhetor and suggests that his or her
most influential tool is language.
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, E. 1991. Managerial fads and fashions: The
diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 16: 586–612.
Abrahamson, E. 1996. Management fashion. Academy of
Management Review, 21: 254–285.
Abrahamson, E. 1997. The emergence and prevalence of
employee-management rhetorics: The effect of long
waves, labor unions, and turnover, 1875 to 1992. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 40: 491–533.
Abrahamson, E., & Fairchild, G. 1999. Management fashion:
Lifecycles, triggers and collective learning processes.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 708–740.
Abrahamson, E., & Rosenkopf, L. 1993. Institutional and com-
petitive bandwagons: Using mathematical modeling as
a tool to explore innovation diffusion. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 18: 487–518.
Aldrich, H., & Fiol, C. 1994. Fools rush in? The institutional
context of industry creation. Academy of Management
Review, 19: 645–670.
Alvesson, M., & Ka¨ rreman, D. 2000. Taking the linguistic turn
in organizational research: Challenges, responses, con-
sequences. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36:
136–158.
Aristotle 1991. The art of rhetoric. New York: Penguin Books.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. 1995. Emotion in the work-
place: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48: 97–125.
Astley, W. G., & Zammuto, R. F. 1992. Organization science,
managers, and language games. Organization Science,
3: 443–460.
Austin, J. L. 1975. How to do things with words. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bakhtin, M. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: Uni-
versity Press.
Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. 1992. Design and devotion: Surges
of rational and normative ideologies of control in man-
agerial discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37:
363–399.
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. 1997. Institutionalization and
structuration: Studying the links between action and
institution. Organization Studies, 18: 93–117.
Baron, J. N., Dobbin, F. R., & Jennings, P. D. 1986. War and
peace: The evolution of modern personnel administra-
tion in U.S. industry. American Journal of Sociology, 92:
350–383.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of
reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New
York: Doubleday.
Bies, R. J. 1987. The predicament of injustice: The manage-
ment of moral outrage. Research in Organizational Be-
havior, 9: 289–319.
Billig, M. 1996. Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach
to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Birsch, D., & Fielder, J. H. 1994. The Ford Pinto case: A study
2004 665 Green
in applied ethics, business, and technology. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (Eds.). 1990. The rhetorical tradition:
Readings from classical times to the present. Boston:
Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press.
Booth, W. 1974. Modern dogma and the rhetoric of assent.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burke, K. 1969. A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Burt, R. S. 1987. Structural contagion and innovation: Cohe-
sion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of
Sociology, 92: 1287–1335.
Carson, P., Lanier, P., Carson, K., & Guidry, B. 2000. Clearing
a path through the management fashion jungle: Some
preliminary trailblazing. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 43: 1143–1159.
Chandler, A. D. 1977. The visible hand: The managerial rev-
olution in American business. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press.
Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Menzel, H. 1966. Medical innova-
tion: A diffusion study. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Damasio, A. R. 1994. Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and
the human brain. New York: Putnam.
Dandridge, T. C., Mitroff, I., & Joyce, W. F. 1980. Organiza-
tional symbolism: A topic to expand organizational
analysis. Academy of Management Review, 5: 77–82.
Davis, G. 1991. Agents without principles? The spread of the
poison pill through the intercorporate network. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 36: 583–590.
Davis, G., & Greve, H. 1997. Corporate elite networks and
governance changes in the 1980’s. American Journal of
Sociology, 103: 1–37.
Dawkins, R. 1976. The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Deming, E. 1986. Out of crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engi-
neering Study.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. 1983. The iron cage revisited:
Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in
organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48:
147–160.
Dobbin, F. R., Edelman, L., Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R., &
Swiddler, A. 1988. The expansion of due process in or-
ganizations. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns
and organizations: Culture and environments: 71–100.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Domagalski, T. 1999. Emotion in organizations: Main cur-
rents. Human Relations, 52: 833–852.
Donaldson, L. 1995. American anti-management theories of
organization: A critique of paradigm proliferation. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Douglas, M. 1986. How institutions think. Syracuse, NY: Syr-
acuse University Press.
Easton, G. S. 1993. The 1993 state of U.S. total quality man-
agement: A Baldridge examiner’s perspective. Califor-
nia Management Review, 35(3): 32–55.
Eccles, R., Nohria, N., & Berkley, J. D. 1992. Beyond the hype:
Rediscovering the essence of management. Boston: Har-
vard Business School Press.
Elsbach, K. D. 1994. Managing organizational legitimacy in
the California cattle industry: The construction and ef-
fectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 39: 57–88.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cam-
bridge, MA: Polity Press.
Fineman, S. 1996. Emotion and organizing. In S. Clegg,
C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), The handbook of organization
studies: 543–564. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fligstein, N. 1985. The structural transformation of American
industry: An institutional account of the causes of diver-
sification in the largest firms. In W. W. Powell & P. J.
DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organiza-
tional analysis: 311–336. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. 1995. The role of conversations in
producing intentional change in organizations. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 20: 541–570.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. 1991. Bringing society back in:
Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In
W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institu-
tionalism in organizational analysis: 223–262. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Gamson, W. A., & Meyer, D. S. 1996. Framing political oppor-
tunity. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.),
Comparative perspectives on social movements: Politi-
cal opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural
framings: 275–290. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gergen, K. J. 1994. Realities and relationships: Soundings in
social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Gergen, K. J., & Thatchenkery, T. J. 1996. Organization sci-
ence as social construction: Postmodern potentials. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32: 356–377.
Giddens, A. 1979. Central problems in social theory: Action,
structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Gill, A. M., & Whedbee, K. 1997. Rhetoric. In T. A. van Dijk
(Ed.), Discourse as structure and process: Discourse stud-
ies: A multidisciplinary introduction: 157–184. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure:
The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of So-
ciology, 91: 481–510.
Granovetter, M., & Soong, R. 1983. Threshold models of dif-
fusion and collective behavior. Journal of Mathematical
Sociology, 9(3): 165–179.
Grant, D., Keenoy, T., & Oswick, C. 1998. Discourse and or-
ganization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Green, S. Jr., 2001. Rhetoric and the institutionalization of
takeover defenses in the S&P 1500 from 1975–1998. Un-
666 October Academy of Management Review
published doctoral dissertation, Harvard University
Graduate School of Business, Boston.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. 2002. Theorizing
change: The role of professional associations in the
transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of
Management Journal, 45: 58–80.
Greve, H. 1995. Jumping ship: The diffusion of strategy aban-
donment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 444–473.
Guthrie, W. K. C. 1993. The sophists. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Habermas, J. 1984. The theory of communicative action. Bos-
ton: Beacon Press.
Hackman, R., & Wageman, R. 1995. Total quality manage-
ment: Empirical, conceptual, and practical issues. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 40: 309–342.
Hasselbladh, H., & Kallinikos, J. 2000. The project of ration-
alization: A critique and reappraisal of neo-institution-
alism in organization studies. Organization Studies, 21:
697–720.
Hasselbladh, H., & Theodoridis, F. 1997. Social magmas and
the conventional explanatory pyramid. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 14(1–2): 53–76.
Haunschild, P. R., & Miner, A. S. 1997. Modes of interorgani-
zational imitation: The effects of outcome, salience,
and uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42:
472–500.
Herrick, J. A. 2001. The history and theory of rhetoric: An
introduction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hirsch, P. 1986. From ambushes to golden parachutes: Cor-
porate takeovers as an instance of cultural framing and
institutional integration. American Journal of Sociology,
91: 800–837.
Hirschman, A. 1991. The rhetoric of reaction. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Homans, G. C. 1961. Social behavior: Its elementary forms.
New York: Harcort, Brace & World.
Huff, A. S. 1983. A rhetorical examination of strategic change.
In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G, Morgan, & T. C. Dandridge
(Eds.), Organizational symbolism: 167–183. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Husserl, E. 1962. Ideas: General introduction to pure phenom-
enology. New York: Collier.
Ishikawa, K. 1985. What is total quality control? The Japanese
way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jepperson, R. L. 1991. Institutions, institutional effects, and
institutionalism. In W. W. Powell & P. J. Dimaggio (Eds.),
The new institutionalism in organizational analysis:
146–163. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Juran, J. M. 1974. The quality control handbook (3rd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Kerferd, G. B. 1993. The sophistic movement. Cambridge:
Cambridge University.
Kieser, A. 1997. Rhetoric and myth in management fashion.
Organization: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organiza-
tion, Theory, and Society, 4(1): 49–74.
King, W. R., & Kugler, J. L. 2000. The impact of rhetorical
strategies on innovation decisions: An experimental
study. Omega, 28: 485–499.
Krackhardt, D. 2001. Viscosity models and the diffusion of
controversial innovation. In A. Lomi & E. Larsen (Eds.),
Dynamics of organizations: Computational modeling
and organization theories: 243–268. Menlo Park, CA:
AAAI Press/MIT Press.
Kuhn, T. S. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Lamertz, K., & Baum, J. A. C. 1998. The legitimacy of organi-
zational downsizing in Canada: An analysis of explan-
atory media accounts. Canadian Journal of Administra-
tive Sciences, 15(1): 93–107.
Lawler, E., III, & Mohrman, S. 1985. Quality circles after the
fad. Harvard Business Review, 63(1): 65–71.
Lawler, E., III, Mohrman, S., & Leford, G. J. 1992. Employee
involvement and total quality management. San Fran-
cisco: Josey-Bass.
Lawrence, T. B., Winn, M. I., & Jennings, P. D. 2001. The
temporal dynamics of institutionalization. Academy of
Management Review, 28: 624–644.
Lewin, K., & Cartwright, D. 1964. Field theory in social sci-
ence. New York: Harper & Row.
Lynch, A. 1996. Thought contagion: How belief spreads
through society. New York: Basic Books.
Macy, M., & Strang, D. 2001. Dedicated followers of success:
A computational model of fashionable innovations. In
A. Lomi & E. Larsen (Eds.), Dynamics of organizations:
Computational modeling and organization theories: 93–
117. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/MIT Press.
March, J. G., & Heath, C. 1994. A primer on decision making:
How decisions happen. New York: Free Press.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1979. Ambiguity and choice in
organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
McCloskey, D. N. 1998. The rhetoric of economics. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. 1991. Institutionalized organizations:
Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In W. W. Powell
& P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in or-
ganizational analysis: 41–62. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. 1994. Ontology and
rationalization. In R. Scott & J. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional
environments and organizations: Structural complexity
and individualism: 9–27. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mintzberg, H. 1973. The nature of managerial work. New
York: Harper & Row.
Mitroff, I. I., & Anagnos, G. 2000. Managing crises before they
happen: What every executive and manager needs to
know about crisis management. New York: Amacom.
Nohria, N., & Harrington, B. 1994. The rhetoric of change.
Research note No. 9-494-036. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business School.
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional pro-
cesses. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145–179.
2004 667 Green
Oliver, C. 1992. The antecedents of deinstitutionalization.
Organization Studies, 13: 568–588.
O’Neill, H. M., Pouder, R. W., & Buchholtz, A. K. 1998. Patterns
in the diffusion of strategies across organizations: In-
sights from the innovation diffusion literature. Academy
of Management Review, 23: 98–114.
O’Neill, J. 1997. Rhetoric, science, and philosophy. Philoso-
phy of the Social Sciences, 28(2): 205–225.
Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. 1997. Managerial dis-
courses: Words speak louder than actions? Journal of
Applied Management Studies, 6(1): 5–12.
Palmer, D. A., Jennings, P. D., & Zhou, X. 1993. Late adoption
of the multidivisional form by large U.S. corporations:
Institutional, political, and economic accounts. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 38: 100–131.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The new rhetoric:
A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame Press.
Perrow, C. 1993. Complex organizations: A critical essay.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pfeffer, J. 1981. Management as symbolic action. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 3: 1–51.
Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G. R., & Leblebici, H. 1976. The effect of
uncertainty on the use of social influence in organiza-
tional decision making. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 21: 227–245.
Pondy, L. R., & Mitroff, I. I. 1979. Beyond open systems of
organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1:
3–39.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. 1991. Introduction. In W. W.
Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism
in organizational analysis: 1–38. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Putnam, L., & Mumby, D. 1993. Organizations, emotion and
the myth of rationality. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotions in
organizations: 36–57. London: Sage.
Quine, W. V., & Ullian, J. S. 1978. The web of belief. New York:
Random House.
Quinn, K. 1996. A rhetorical conception of practical ration-
ality. Journal of Economic Issues, 30: 1127–1142.
Richards, I. A. 1965. The philosophy of rhetoric. London: Ox-
ford University Press.
Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free
Press.
Rorty, R. 1980. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rubin, E. 1998. Putting rational actors in their place: Econom-
ics and phenomenology. Vanderbilt Law Review, 51:
1705–1727.
Schelling, T. C. 1978. Micromotives and macrobehavior. New
York: Norton.
Schutz, A. 1962. Collected papers: The problems of social
reality. The Hague: Marinuw Nijhorr.
Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. 1968. Accounts. American Socio-
logical Review, 33: 46–92.
Scott, R. W. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in administration: A sociologi-
cal interpretation. New York: Harper & Row.
Semin, G. R., & Manstead, A. S. R. 1983. The accountability of
conduct: A social psychological analysis. London & New
York: Academic Press, published in cooperation with
the European Association of Experimental Social Psy-
chology.
Simon, H. 1945. Administrative behavior. New York: Free
Press.
Strang, D. 1991. Adding social structure to diffusion models:
An event history framework. Sociological Methods and
Research, 19: 324–353.
Strang, D., & Macy, M. W. 2001. In search of excellence: Fads,
success stories, and adaptive emulation. American Jour-
nal of Sociology 107: 147–182.
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. 1994. Institutional conditions for
diffusion. In R. W. Scott & J. W. Meyer (Eds.), Institu-
tional environments and organizations: Structural
complexity and individualism: 100 –111. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. 1998. Diffusion in organizations and
social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills.
Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 265–290.
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and
institutional approaches. Academy of Management Re-
view, 20: 571–610.
Swiddler, A. 1979. Culture and action: Symbols and strate-
gies. American Sociological Review, 51: 273–286.
Taylor, F. W. 1911. The principles of scientific management.
New York: Harper Brothers.
Thirtle, C. G., & Ruttan, V. W. 1987. The role of demand and
supply in the generation and diffusion of technical
change. Chur, Switzerland & New York: Harwood Aca-
demic.
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. 1983. Institutional sources of
change in the formal structure of organizations: The
diffusion of civil service reform 1880–1935. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 30: 22–39.
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. 1996. The institutionalization of
institutional theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord
(Eds.), Handbook of organization studies: 175–190. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Toulmin, S. E. 1969. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Valente, T. W. 1996. Social network thresholds in the diffu-
sion of innovations. Social Networks, 18: 69–89.
van Dijk, T. A. 1997. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary
introduction. London, Sage.
Watson, T. J. 1995. Rhetoric, discourse and argument in or-
ganizational sense making: A reflexive tale. Organiza-
tion Studies, 16: 805–821.
Weick, K. 1972. The social psychology of organizing. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R., & Shortell, S. M. 1997. Customi-
668 October Academy of Management Review
zation or conformity? An institutional and network
perspective on the content and consequences of TQM
adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 366–
394.
Wittgenstein, L. 1963. Philosophical investigations. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Zald, M. N. 1996. More fragmentation? Unfinished business
in linking the social sciences and the humanities. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 41: 251–264.
Zbaracki, M. 1998. The rhetoric and reality of total quality
management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43:
602–636.
Zucker, L. 1987. Institutional theories of organization. Annual
Review of Sociology, 13: 443–464.
Zucker, L. 1991. The role of institutionalization in cultural
persistence. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The
new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 83–107.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sandy Edward Green, Jr., is an assistant professor of management at the University of
Southern California, Los Angeles. He received his Ph.D. from the Harvard University
Graduate School of Business. His current research interests include neoinstitutional
theory, rhetorical theory, and corporate governance.
2004 669 Green
doc_999899940.pdf