Isomorphism & Translation: how are global models adopted and adapted?
Back in February 2017, while still working in Washington, D.C., I remember walking past a Gold’s Gym near the Ashoka office in Rosslyn. About a day later, when I landed in Tokyo, I saw the same gym again. It wasn’t a very dramatic moment, but it was significant enough to make me think, in passing, that perhaps Japan was not as resistant to some of the visible markers of globalization, at least to the extent I thought it was. And seeing the same gym there made me wonder if, over time, everything everywhere would start to look the same.
Professionally, I have seen a similar pattern. In higher education, for example, models and frameworks like the liberal arts or design thinking get “taken in” by colleges and universities around the world. When I worked at Ashoka, we regularly engaged with colleges and universities from around the world that had adopted global social innovation models (including design thinking) in some shape or form. They were drawn to these “global” models because they offered legitimacy, aligned with stakeholder expectations, and fit within the norms of the field.
During one of my graduate school lectures at Cambridge, we briefly explored the concept of isomorphism, which provided a more academic explanation for this idea. The idea of isomorphism is that institutions tend to look alike over time, shaped by three kinds of pressure: copying peers (mimetic), complying with local regulations (coercive), and following professional norms (normative).
But the idea is not as straightforward. Institutional theorists also talk about the idea of translation, which says that ideas change as they travel. This complicates isomorphism’s concept of convergence. A Gold’s Gym in Washington D.C., for example, is not the same as one in Tokyo – different people, different market, different priorities. Other organizations (including universities) also face a similar challenge while importing global models. Local context forces them to make choices, and in many cases, wholesale adoption of global models isn’t the most efficient solution.
The Isomorphism/Translation Tension
This tension between isomorphism and translation was intriguing for me, and I wanted to explore it further. So, for my dissertation, I examined how globally established frameworks (such as the liberal arts or social innovation) are adopted and adapted as they are transferred from one place to another. More specifically, I was interested in how isomorphic pressures – the pull to adopt global models for legitimacy, whether because peers are doing it (mimetic), regulators demand it (coercive), or professional norms expect it (normative) – interact with the realities of translation.
I chose Ashesi University in Ghana as my case. I have long admired Patrick Awuah’s work in Ghana, and this gave me an excuse to visit Ghana and spend time at the university. Ashesi has been explicit about bringing the American liberal arts model into Africa. I have also been working on bringing elements of the liberal arts and social innovation model to Nepal, so studying Ashesi’s process and model felt relevant on multiple levels.
More importantly, it gave me a chance to see firsthand how a model designed for an American society is translated into the Ghanaian context, and the broader lessons it offers about how isomorphism and translation actually play out in practice.
Cautious and Symbolic Adoption in the early years
What I found is that the early years of organizations are generally fraught with uncertainty and a lack of institutional credibility. They do not yet have the legitimacy or influence to push back against local regulations or societal demands, even when those demands may be at odds with their vision or identity. Add to that the fact that they are also trying to establish their own place in the local market.
As a result, organizations often “borrow” legitimacy through external affiliations, partnerships with globally recognized institutions, or by leveraging the social capital of individuals associated with the organization. In fact, the very act of adopting global models in these early years becomes a way to signal credibility in a local context that is uncertain about the value of the new organization. In Ashesi’s case, for example, they leveraged Microsoft (where Patrick worked before moving back to Ghana), UC Berkeley, and Swarthmore to signal legitimacy to local stakeholders.
For this reason, adoption can sometimes become symbolic rather than substantive, particularly in cases where the wholesale adoption of global models is not in the best interests of the organization. In other words, organizations may put global models into their marketing materials and program descriptions, but in practice, they continue operating much as before.
Institutional theorists call this “decoupling” – a way to signal alignment with globally recognized frameworks without making deep internal changes. This idea is really interesting because decoupling allows institutions to buy time: they enjoy the benefits of appearing to be in alignment with validated external models while also working within the constraints of local regulations, resource limitations, or market pressures.
Adapting Global Frameworks to Local Needs
Over time, as institutions build a stronger reputation and their value becomes visible to the market, they gain more space and autonomy to make changes to these global models. Earning institutional credibility allows them to push back against elements of global models that do not suit them, and in turn, they can reshape – or adapt – global models to fit local context and their own identity.
At this stage, then, the work shifts from primarily adoption to adaptation. Most global frameworks are no longer copied wholesale, but they are adapted. For universities like Ashesi, this might mean taking a global curriculum framework and filling it with local cases and regional narratives. Innovation and entrepreneurship programs may not begin with an imported framework but with problems drawn directly from students’ or communities’ lived realities and experiences.
Of course, this is not to say that the isomorphic pressures are not present. They are still present. But institutions now have enough reputational capital to resist some of these pressures. They might also no longer need to use global models for legitimacy, but instead, have the option of using them selectively. Elements that align with their own institutional priorities are kept, others are adapted, and many are simply not taken up.
Towards Framework Creation
For organizations that gain sufficient credibility, resources, and confidence, there comes a point when they move beyond examining global models for adoption or adaptation as a starting point. While this is in no way representative of all organizations, it was certainly true in the case of Ashesi University, where they have now reached a stage where global frameworks serve as reference points, and they are creating their own frameworks internally. At Ashesi’s Entrepreneurship Center, for example, they are now creating their own student entrepreneurial archetypes based on internal research.
At this point of organizational maturity, it is clear that the initial reference point shifts from external to internal. Instead of beginning with an imported model or framework and working out how to adapt it to suit their context, organizations start with their own context – their identity, values, and local priorities. Organizations might still consult global models, but they are treated more like an optional set of resources that are used when they add value and left aside when they do not align with what they are looking for.
So, what does this all mean?
Broadly, my research has shown that the primary utility of global models and frameworks lies in the legitimacy they provide, especially in the early years. New organizations operating in different/complex environments do not have a lot of choice – they need credibility to survive, and global models supply that credibility, even when not everything within it might fit perfectly. Adoption of global models at this stage is more about what you signal rather than internal alignment.
However, once organizations are established and have built their own institutional reputation, the story changes. Credibility enables organizations to examine global models with a more critical lens. At that point in their organizational maturity, they have a lot of autonomy over translation – they can decide what to keep, what to adapt, and what just to leave behind. In other words, if necessity was the key driver of early adoption of global models, choice drives later adaptation of global models and frameworks as ideas or models move from one place to the other.
In many ways, this research also gave me some answers to the question I had wondered about back in 2017 in Tokyo. Will things look eventually look the same everywhere? The answer, I think, is both yes and no. In the early years, it is understandable that the gym resembled those found elsewhere around the world. But if I walked into that same Gold’s Gym in Tokyo today, almost eight years later, I am sure it would feel different than the one I saw in 2017. The name might be the same, but the way it runs, the priorities shaping it, would carry Tokyo’s local character.
***
