This paper reviews 128 works on translation in management studies and identifies four perspectives (diffusion, actor‐network theory, Scandinavian Institutionalism and organizational boundaries) which are argued to be underpinned by four relatively disparate theoretical archetypes (scientism, actualism, social constructivism and symbolic interactionism). It is argued that, individually, these archetypes possess strengths and weaknesses in understanding translation, yet are relatively incommensurable, which mitigates against interperspective dialogue and the insights that this might promote. With illustrations, the paper suggests that the stratified and emergent ontology proposed by critical realism can provide a more inclusive foundation for interdisciplinary engagement on translation, which combines many strengths and ameliorates several weaknesses of the individual archetypes.