(Trans)Formative Trajectories of Decisions: An Analysis from The Translation Perspective

: Motivated by an agenda for empirical research on decisions, we seek to understand how an issue or idea is labelled as a "decision". Based on the relational ontology, we used the Actor-Network eory as a theoretical frame, and particularly the translation perspective. In order to understand the "process of formation and stabilization of decisions" focused on what makes actors act, we conducted an ethnographic study in a social enterprise for 30 months. rough narrative analysis, we propose the (trans)formative trajectories of decisions in which we describe the trajectory of these hybrid entities achieving the status of relative ﬁxity labelled as "the decision". We understand the trajectory as an ongoing translation journey; thus, we tracked decisions in their trajectories of translation, packaging and legitimation. e elements of the organizational decision-making are re-signiﬁed as performative texts, which enter the network of relations. erefore, decisions are (trans)formed on a journey of mediation among multiple actants. When objectiﬁed as crystallized texts, the decisions become performative, because they start to organize and participate in the constitution of the ongoing reality. is theoretical framework allowed us to extend the processual understanding of decision-making aligned with the relational ontology and the time-process perspective.


Introduction
e research on organizational decision-making comprises a set of empirical and theoretical studies that understand the decision as a fundamental element of the organizational process (Laroche, 1995, Tsoukas, 2010).In these studies, the decision is a product of a cognitive work ( Cyert & March, 1963), in which an individual (actor, group of actors or an organization) chooses, consciously and intentionally, among numerous alternatives, a course of action towards one objective (Bond et al., 2008).
is cognitive approach (as a broad perspective), based on studies in psychology, is the dominant perspective in organizational studies (Luhman & Cunliffe, 2013).us, instrumental rationality permeates the models and theories of decisions and decision-making, even in approaches that intended to challenge these well-stablished theories (Cabantous et al., 2010).ese approaches, although based on diverse theoretical traditions, adopt a substantialist ontology (for an exceptional criticism see Nayak & Chia, 2011).In this ontology of substance, the decision is considered ontologically simple and non-problematic (Chia, 1994).In other words, the decision (i) exists objectively, (ii) is made intentionally, and (iii) is implemented, aer a process (more or less direct) between the problem and the choice.
At the same time, scholars have been studying decision as a social event (Abend, 2018).As a counterpoint to the rationalist mainstream, the decision has been studied as a social construction (Laroche, 1995), communicational event (Hendry, 2000), social practice (Villar et al., 2018) and performative process (Villar & Cabantous, 2018).In these proposals, the authors use a processual (Nayak & Chia, 2011) or relational ontology (Latour, 2005), in which reality is dynamic in its nature and is given by unfolding and (un)continuities of the relationship among multiple actors (human and non-human), instead of static ties between inert substances (Emirbayer, 1997).In this sense, decisions cannot be understood or interpreted as if they had a meaning in themselves, but only in a relational, situated and open context.
Motivated by an agenda for empirical research on decisions (Abend, 2018), in this paper we seek to understand how an issue or idea is labelled as a "decision" and how this decision takes part in the organizational life.To this end, we use the translation perspective, which indicates that when something is changed (e.g.decision) from one place to another, it does not remain the same.Here we understand the "change of place" as the situational immersion of the phenomenon.Based on the Actor-Network eory, in this paper we recognize that translation is about enrolling more and more elements (humans, non-humans and hybrids) into a more or less stabilized network to support a specific claim and possibly turn this claim into a taken-for-granted fact (Waldorff, 2013).
Based on this ontology, we analyse the decision in a social world composed of networks situated spatiotemporally (Latour, 2005) among a variety of actants (see Greimas et al., 1982 for the definition of the term actant).In this context, interactions happen between human and non-human actants, and the decision is built on the mediation among individuals, networks of decisions and objects in the organizational decision-making process.is complexification (see Tsoukas, 2017) allows us to approach a performative epistemology, refuting the normative ideal of rationality in traditional perspectives of decision-making, and bringing us closer to how the process happens in the organizational context.
As a consequence, we can understand different aspects of the decisionmaking process, such as the very search for rationality undertaken by the actors in this process, the interests at stake (since relations are never neutral) and the results labelled as "decision", beyond those labelled as "correct", "wrong", "good", "bad", "successful", "failed".Faced with this discussion, we performed an ethnographic study in a social enterprise for 30 months to understand the performance of the actors (broadly defined) in forming and sustaining decisions in vivo, with a focus on what makes them act.Our contribution is to propose the transformative trajectories of decision, and so, extend the processual understanding of decision-making aligned with the relational ontology and the timeprocess perspective.
In the following sections, we discuss the theoretical support, the methodological process and the findings of this study.

Literature Review
In this section, we present the perspective of translation based on the developments of the Actor-Network eory (Latour, 2005) and its repercussions on agency and decision interpretation.

Actor-Network eory and e Perspective of Translation
e Actor-Network eory can be characterized as an ontologically flat approach, without recognizing any a priori structure/structural factor, giving analytical equality to humans, non-humans and hybrids in the process of analysis.is ontological assumption, linked to the Latourian theoretical principle, distances our study from the approach used in studies of organizational institutionalism (from the tradition of Scandinavian institutionalism) (for this discussion see Waeraas & Nielsen, 2016).e word translation receives, in our approach, a specific meaning: "a relationship that does not carry causality, but that induces two mediators to exist" (Latour, 2005, p. 108). For Callon (1986), translation allows us to reach an explanation of how some people have the right to express and represent the many silent actors of the social and natural worlds they have mobilized.
Waeraas & Nielsen (2016) identified three different perspectives of the translation approach in organisational studies: (i) actor-network perspective; (ii) knowledged-based perspective; (iii) Scandinavian institutionalist perspective.In this study, we adopt the translation perspective based on the Actor-Network eory, where "to translate something is to actively modify an object within the context and complexities of an actor network" (Waeraas & Nielsen, 2016: 9).Although this concept of translation is close to the understanding of Scandinavian institutionalist translation literature (e.g.Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996), their ontological bases and the theoretical-methodological assumptions differ substantially (Waldorff, 2013).
In a network, different actors make up a set of performative relationships, which induce actors to do things and/or make other elements dependent on these relationships through the translation of their interests into a common language (Callon 1986;Latour, 2005).Callon (1986) describes the translation process using four interdependent processes: (i) problematization: finding common passage points so that different roles and identities can be constructed; (ii) interessement: testing problematized relationships to find the link between the interests of various actors; (iii) enrolment: distributing roles to the actors who accept them and start representing them in the network; (iv) mobilization: ensuring that a spokesperson represents the network and speaks on behalf of its members.Although it seems a linear process, the translation will not necessarily reach a state of network convergence, because it is a process of continuous transformation, resulting in a chain of unique translations (Callon, 1986).Czarniawska and Joerges (1996) refer to the process of translation described by Callon (1986) to study how ideas circulate and are translated into different places and spaces in time.For these authors, in addition to the political aspect of the mobilization of different actors, the term translation also reveals materiality, since ideas and words can only travel in time and space when embodied and objectified (Czarniawska, 2009).ere is a convergence about the concept of translation between Czarniawska and Joerges (1996) and Callon (1986): there is no causal and intentional processes, because any change in any relationship -whether the adoption of an idea in a different context or the formation of an identity and the representation of a specific role -should go through a stabilization process in the network of relations, which could be seen as translation trajectories (Garud et al., 2018).
Despite the apparent polysemy of the term (Czarniawska, 2009), we can suggest that the translation process is related to transfer and transformation processes.By rejecting social structures, and the power that this implies, Actor-Network eory provides insights into how translation happens (O'Mahoney, 2016).Everyone (human and nonhuman) is engaged in actions that create differences, change the world, produce unexpected events and bring about changes that would not have happened without them.us, the reality is in a continuous process of construction and transformation (Nayak & Chia, 2011).
According to Callon (2009), the so-called non-humans actively participate in the collective action by influencing it, internally redefining it and changing its direction and trajectories.In other words, the action can only be assessed in the specific context where it is inserted because its limits are not defined by attributes, but by the relationship in question (Hawkins, 2015).us, the action cannot be explained, in a reductionist manner, as a definite consequence of any previous action ( Callon & Law, 1997), because any actor (human or non-human) has the potential to act, and the action is the result of a continuous process of translation, association and negotiation (Latour, 1999).Latour (2005: 205) affirms that: "... no one else, in particular, does anything".
In these translation processes, the human beings' agency, as a central theoretical assumption, needs to be understood together with the agency of several non-humans and vice versa.e agency is not a property of certain types of entities, but an emerging property of networks and interrelationships between heterogeneous actors/actants.e more actors join these networks and the more heterogeneous they are, the more powerful is the resulting distributed agency.According to Latour (2005: 63), the agency is not an exclusive property of human beings; on the contrary, "objects also imply agency", to the extent that a flat ontology evokes the idea that the social world can only be understood through relationships and that these are an imbrication of humans and non-humans.e agency is an emerging property, derived from humans and non-humans arrangements because entities do not exist alone and the agents are effects generated in a configuration of different matters, always being a relational product (Law, 1999).
We can mention here research that have discussed empirically the translation process in organization studies.Based on historical data, Bruce & Nyland (2011) used the translation perspective to explain how Elton Mayo and the Human Relations School were able to translate the prevailing context and in so doing created a forum in which powerful actors came to agree that the Human Relations school was an innovation worth building and defending.Hawkins (2015) detailed in a study on the Royal Navy establishment in Great Britain how hybridized relationships co-enable possibilities for action that bring to life, reinforce and call into question the human-centred, gendered, colonialist web of assumptions and practices through which Royal Naval personnel understand and enact leadership.In the same way, Sandhu et al. (2008) detailed the differentiated translation of a balanced scorecard implementation through a network of human and non-human actors.Waldorff (2013) studied the way the organizational actors translated meaning into the development of a new healthcare centre on a municipality in Denmark; she concluded that decision making in the public sector might in practice be less strategic and intentional, so the translation of discourse could also be explained by how successfully the related practices can be developed.In this vein, Villar et al. (2019), in a case study of a Brazilian social enterprise, explored the practices of opening up the strategy supporting a translation process, thus minimizing the tensions of organizational hybridism.e scholars showed how decisions have been interwoven over time in the constant search to create, involve, strength and maintain the ties between actors and the actornetwork.

Distributed Agency and e Performativity of Decisions
In the relational logic, no entity is discreet or detached from its "context".Action is equally mediated, in principle, by all elements of the network, since they have no well-established boundaries, are sets of relations and therefore coexist on equal terms (without hierarchical, structural and/or substantial separations).
Humans, objects and texts mobilize, represent and take the form of networks of entities.ese elements (humans, objects and texts) become hybrids because they are products of the relational process and impact the emergency of the organizational processes.Latour (1993: 112) calls hybridization the "construction of complex networks between diverse entities, as a defining characteristic of modernity and the key to its peculiar dynamism".e hybrids are the effect of this relational process and participate in the course of action itself, i.e., participate in the mediation process that unveils the lived reality.We emphasize that the "materialization" of these hybrids makes it easier for them to act in (and be transferred) to other times and spaces.
erefore, the decision can be studied as a hybrid text, because unlike artefacts and humans, the text does not have an identifiable social format.Texts exist only in and through their continuous and collective employment (Krarup & Blok, 2011).However, these specific hybrid forms (texts), which were socially and materially objectified as decisions, may gain explicit roles in the investigation process, without breaking with the relational ontology.Even though it is a relational entity created in a set of relations, the decision also has the possibility of "make do", just like any other element of the network.In this sense, even a decision can mediate an effect of action on the other, acquiring a performative character.at is, without their participation in the network of relations, the trajectory spatiotemporally produced would not be the same.e example of Laroche (1995) illustrates this reasoning: A group of people believe that there is a "decision" to be made, a meeting is scheduled, and at the end of it, participants think that a "decision" has been made.ey (participants) are more likely to believe this because they go to a meeting with the idea that they will "decide" and believe that they are experiencing a decisionmaking process.[...]ose who did not take part in the meeting, but are aware of its occurrence, think that a decision was at stake.ey search for information on the outcome by asking "what was decided?".ose who are not in this interaction will eventually find a record of this meeting or a conversation and will interpret this meeting as the time and space of "decision," through which they can understand today's results (Laroche, 1995: 70).
We can see from this passage that people, places, issues, instruments are part of the decision-making process.What would be done with the decision if there were no meeting room, no previously agenda, this or that individual?How could the 'decision' go forward in time and space without the minute, e-mails, or the agenda notes?Based on these questions, agency could not be understood without including the entire relational arrangement in the analysis.
In this sense, the decision as an entity that feeds and is fed by a heterogeneous network -that sustains it for more or less time -cannot be only a result (causal), since in a flat and symmetrical ontology, the decision (entity) is in equality with humans and non-humans (Latour, 2005), who by translation movements gave it "cause".us, the decision itself (quasiobjective entity) has a relative agency capacity on the network.
e decision, like any other human, non-human and hybrid entity, also has the power of agency over reality.e assumption that the decision precedes or succeeds the action is limiting or even fruitless because the decision also involves the action.e decision, as text, in a performative way, has "power of action" over individuals, artefacts and routines that are organized around them in a system of relations.
In this perspective, it is necessary to exclude the precepts of intentionality, reflexivity, rationality that were coupled with the concept of agency (Sayes, 2014).e action is an effect of the relationships among multiples, and the agency comes from this relational process in which humans, non-humans and hybrids are imbricated and relatively committed.e word imbrication suggests that action cannot be understood by separating the elements that give rise to it because action is the result of its functioning as a whole (Czarniawska, 2009).

Methodology
Considering the focus of our investigation on the translation process in an organizational reality, we study the case of a social enterprise for approximately 30 months (Jun.2015 to Dec. 2017).A social enterprise focuses on social innovations based on the development of new ideas (products, services and models) that can meet social needs ( Bridgstock et al., 2010).Due to the hybrid nature of its organization and the different institutional logics at play (Battilana et al., 2017 ), a social enterprise represents a privileged place to study the phenomenon of decision making from the perspective of translation.
During the fieldwork, we conducted 26 interviews (with 16 human actors) connected to the social enterprise in its most varied relationships and more than 78 days of ethnographic observation, in which one of the authors participated in the organization daily activities.e scholar in question did not assume any formal role in the organization, so his/ her participation refers to the availability to be in the field and develop the ethnographic work.Doing so, the referred scholar was present to accompany meetings, trips, presentations, actions, and administrative work of various actors linked to the social enterprise.In the end, we have been 268 hours in the fieldwork and produced 513 pages of notes in observation reports (ORs).
In an ethnographic study, there is no inflexible prior planning of how the field research will be carried out, since the length of the study, as a rule, is given by the availability (mostly by limitation) of time and resources to remain in the field (Van Maanen, 2014, 2015).e selection of the research subjects and the situations to observe are movements of those who are available and go in search of the tracks and clues that the field offers, without the illusion of exhaustion by data saturation (Kunda, 2013).
e analysis of the notes is perhaps the process in which Annemarie Mol's words were most present: "beware: as you walk nobody will hold your hand, there are no assurances" (Mol, 2010: 33).From this perspective, there are no well-established categories and/or procedures in which the researcher gains confidence as he/she performs step by step.In alignment with an ethnography, the analysis takes place through a scientific-creative process, in which codes, patterns, interpretations, structures, theories "do not emerge from the text (i.e.data), they are actively made" (Kunda, 2013: 18).
However, as a didactic resource to explain to the reader the paths we took in the process of analysis and interpretation of the research notes, we organized the analysis process into two stages.Given the nature of the research, these stages are not separated from each other and were not previously planned.Due the theoretical perspectives adopted, in the first stage we seek to understand abductively the growing interaction of multiple actors, with special attention to moments and spaces in which these interactions could alter the course of action in the organization.In a particular way, we use the suggestions of Latour (2005), and began the analysis exploring the heterogeneity and multiplicity of participants in the organizational process.at is, with the clarity of the phenomenon under study, we listed the actors (actants) identified in the field notes, among which are included human beings, artefacts and hybrids that act or are triggered during organizational activities.
We then explore the interactions between the actants (previously identified) to understand how their relationships form, modify and/or sustain an "actor-network".In other words, we analyse the translation of a network of actors (actants), and how these actors are linked by bonds of reciprocity and create and/or alter the reality in which they participate.Finally, we describe how a group of entities, acting together, began to have a single voice (that is, it became a stabilized entity).Since the analytical approach is relational, the focus of analysis is on what happens among actors/actants, that is, how they change by interacting with each other.In other words, instead of looking at what happened cognitively or behaviourally at the level of an actor (typically a human being or a group of human beings), we try to understand what happened "relationally", that is, how multiple actors (human and non-human) were connected, how they changed through interactions, and how the result of these interactions constituted hybrids -like decisions -which also began to compose and act on the actor-network.
In the second stage, from the relationships found, we put together all these elements into a narrative to tell the story.In this sense, we develop two narratives of interest (detailed in section 4.2), to exemplify the analysis based on the actor-network perspective.For this, we had to choose some paths, and thus we sought to present a diversity of human actors, artefacts and hybrids, which were constituted from the relationships over time/space and, as a result, emerged as units of meaning so that we could give sense to the notes in search of explanations for the phenomenon of interest.Czarniawska (1998) indicates that the narrative allows form and meaning to be produced in the exhibition of "findings".
Regarding the technical procedures of analysis, we use the soware Atlas.Ti (v.7) to construct the narratives.ese stories were called "decision" by the actors themselves and constituted objects of relations that emerged as units of meaning for us to organize our notes (see Langley, 1999 for a more detailed explanation).From these stories, we establish a conversation between the empirical material and the theoretical approaches, which allowed us to suggest the (trans)formative trajectories of decisions (subsection 4.3).roughout the analysis, we employed an abductive logic (Vásquez et al., 2017), which enabled us to reveal new theoretical-conceptual nuances and interpretations, in a movement of comings and goings between the existing theoretical background and the observed phenomenon (Van Maanen et al., 2007, Vásquez et al., 2016).

Results and Discussion
In this section, we describe the case, present the narrative of the decisions under study and expose a theorization based on these results.
e Case e Social Action for Equality of Differences -ASID Brasil (hereaer ASID) has its beginning from the relationship between Alexandre [later called Executive Director] and his sister Laura.Laura, the younger of the two, is a person with disability (hereaer PwD) diagnosed with Down Syndrome.Alexandre mentions this relationship in the first interview: "ASID was created because of my sister, by the bond I have with her.(...) as I saw that my sister went through many schools and I did not understand it very well, but I knew that these schools had management problems...".(Executive Director -Jun-2015).is sibling relationship is the first relational trait we have traced to the emergence of the social enterprise.
e objective of ASID is to promote the "culture of inclusion", giving support to schools that help people with disabilities (PwDs) and their families.e work promoted by ASID is offered free of charge to the schools and PwDs and, therefore, the organization relies on private social capital support.ASID provides management consulting for these schools, and also supports PwD professional inclusion, the creation and strengthening of a culture of inclusion in companies, and broadly, aims to achieve a more plural, fair and inclusive society.
It is a small Brazilian company, based in the city of Curitiba (state of Paraná), with projects distributed in several regions in Brazil.As a recognition of its performance, in 2013 ASID received the "Social Entrepreneur of the Future" award (from Brazilian largest newspaper), and the "Young Inspiring People" award, which is the most significant entrepreneurship award in Latin America (organized by the largest editorial Brazilian group).In 2018, Alexandre (ASID co-Founder and current Executive Director) was named as one of Brazilian's young leaders under 30 (Under 30 years old), in a national publication of one of the largest business magazines in the world.

Narratives of Interest
In this section, we detail the narratives of the (trans)formation of two decisions: (i) a geographic expansion and (ii) the change in organization's (strategic) way of operating.It should be noted that the decisions were not chosen ex-ante by the scholars, but are ex-post constructions, arising from the language used by the researched actors themselves, who began to label these stories as "decisions" at a given time (spatiotemporally situated) of the study.
Decision 1: Geographic expansion -and how time and space act through the actor-network.
e geographic expansion movement from Curitiba to São Paulo was a recurring issue in the study.We became aware of this idea in the first interviews in 2015, as shown in these excerpts from the interviews with the Project Manager and the Commercial Director: We have a very ambitious plan for growth.We are going to expand to São Paulo, and this came as an opportunity.It would not be easy, but we had some kind of 'open door', because we would already have an assured office [provided by a partner], we would have a network of contacts [of Schools for PwDs and private partners) to access, and then, when we sat down to talk, the five of us [directors], it was more to detail who would move from here [Curitiba] to there [São Paulo].Jun-15-Project Manager Another important issue [...] of expansion is that we are going to São Paulo.We were there now, the [Commercial Analyst] who is responsible for large companies [Partners].We had a mission now to São Paulo with several meetings, there were eight meetings in São Paulo with large companies.We have our plan to expand to São Paulo.Sep-15-Commercial Director.
In September 2015, shortly before a meeting of the Consultative Council at which the founders of ASID would talk about expansion plans for Santa Catarina state, for the western region of Paraná state and/or the city of São Paulo, one of the Councillors told to the author-in-thefield her perspective about the geographical expansion that was being proposed.In the opportunity, she highlighted questions about why to grow, why now, if there is any perceived threat to the current business, and especially about the delicate moment of Brazilian economic crisis.
In this meeting with Councillors, despite ASID founders desire for growth, the councillors pointed out more caution, so that the founders would begin to grow to nearby regions, where it would not be necessary to create physical structures.Besides, these geographic expansions were linked to projects with partner organizations (investors), such as in Joinville city and in the west region of Paraná state.us, the expansion movement was conditioned to financial support from a specific partner organization(s).
Concerning the expansion to São Paulo (our focus), it happened only in August 2016, when ASID team members moved to São Paulo and began to work with Schools for PwDs and to seek support from potential partner organizations.e Executive Director explains retrospectively how, from his perspective, the movement to expand ASID's activities to São Paulo occurred: So, it all started the day I went to give a lecture somewhere, it was an event that we [ASID] promoted.Some guys we know, (...), that we have known for a long time, and who like us a lot.So, one of them talked "I am doing a round of lectures, and I want to direct some money from this to you".So we helped them to set up the event, and on day X, I went to give a lecture and then we invited the [former ASID councillor].And the [former ASID councillor] talked about investment, I had never seen a lecture from him, and it is very good, he's very good.(...)He explained the logic of investing in start-ups, you put a capital, (...) "It is like watering a little plant".He talked.[...] And I really liked his lecture, and I said: "Let's exchange ideas about it, let's talk about it".And I had lunch with him some days aer, and I started to understand a little of this investment logic: You invest, the business grows, and you give the financial return to the investors.And the [former ASID councillor] talked a lot "[Executive Director]", I think ASID had to be an investment one day, it could be profitable, it did not have to be just donation.And he kind of tricked me into it.And I remember one day that I was at home, on a Sunday, at a barbecue, and I had an insight "Let's work with this investment logic to expand to São Paulo!".Why São Paulo, (...) I don't know (...), but I think things were invariably heading there.I had already been there; we [ASID] had already been there.Our first trip to São Paulo took place in 2011.en we went to talk to [Partner in the telephony sector], and I've already had a round of meetings.en the desire arose."São Paulo!", "It's the centre of Brazil, everything happens there", "let's go!".And so we joined the logic of investment with the desire of São Paulo expansion, and it took more than a year, to clarify the idea, to elaborate a formal project, format the project (...) It came to [Partner that works in this logic of investment], it was three years ago, the first meeting with [Partner] was in 2014, and at that time I had no idea on settling a partnership with [Partner].e project was being conceived, I set up a project of 300 thousand [reais -Brazilian currency] for [Partner], and aer several months of negotiation the partnership [investment] did not come out.And so there was one meeting with the Council, they said "Let's go on a 'war plan' and get a loan from natural people".And it was on this way we moved on (...).Dec.-17-Executive Director.erefore, the expansion to São Paulo was made through investment in the logic of financial return to investors aer the end of the project.In this case, ASID members raised R$110,000 from board members and executives sympathetic to ASID's cause or actions, in an agreement to return the borrowed money aer two years.In addition to this search for investors, another movement was caused by demands from another partner in São Paulo.e Executive Director retrospectively details these demands: Based on the analysis of the excerpts presented above, we tracked the idea of expansion to São Paulo since 2011, with real prospects in 2015, in addition to presentations in reports and council meetings, discussions in leadership meetings, participation in lectures, meetings with partners and investors, barbecue on Sunday, phone calls, travel, projects, money, which ended up culminating, as an effect of relationships established at multiple times and places, in the "decision to expand geographically to São Paulo".Although the decision, when retrospectively narrated, seems to have been "taken", and all the following steps lead to an "implementation" of the decision, the text of the decision crystallized in the narrative is the result of an interweaving of spatiotemporally situated relationships that entangle human and non-human actors supporting the movement labelled as "decision".
In this relational movement, we perceive that the decision as a text takes the hybrid form.At the same time that the financial support is presented as the main motivator of the expansion to São Paulo, this materially objectified issue cannot be dissociated from the network of relationships that were built up until the moment of the "decision" being considered as such.is evidence the social dimension of this decision.We emphasize that this discussion goes beyond an example of the relational movement described above.What matters is to understand the performative effect that the hybrid as a whole is capable of acquiring.In this perspective of analysis, we can understand that despite the importance of each of the relational elements, it is the decision as a text, retrospectively signified, that takes on the performative character and acquires the status of "the decision".For this reason, if we refute the relational ontological character, the understanding of the movement and the process of decision is incomplete.at said, we have a way to explain the process of strategies and decisions' implementation, a controversial aspect lacking theoretical explanation.
From August 2017, the author-in-the-field moved to São Paulo to follow new projects with new partners.e Commercial Director described the implementation of these new partnerships, highlighting four large partner companies and showing that 2017 was the year of ASID consolidation in São Paulo.Nowadays, it represents 40% of the global revenue of the business.From August to December 2017, we followed the work that was been developed in several of these projects by participating in meetings with partners, actions in the schools for PwD, planning and monitoring discussions in the schools, daily demands at ASID office, in addition to informal moments (e.g.lunches, comings and goings) with members of the São Paulo team.is team was composed by the Commercial Director, an Operations Analyst and a Fundraising Analyst and also by the Executive Director, the Operations Director, the Marketing Director, the Fundraising Coordinator and other Operations Analysts, who went periodically from Curitiba-PR to São Paulo-SP to work on particular projects and prospect new partners.Retrospectively, In December 2017, we asked for some of these ASID members to explain their interpretation about the geographic expansion to São Paulo.e idea of expanding to São Paulo, in my vision, which I have in my vision until today, was that the [Executive Director] arrived with a plan.Concerning the reason for ASID's expansion issue, it is that in Curitiba is being something really limited for us.So, in my view, he [Executive Director] came up with a plan, for the reasons I understand, and once we had a conversation, he had with the directors, telling them about the plan, and at the end, we should stipulate who should move to São Paulo.Dec-17-Director of Operations.
us, the Actor-Network, which is reported by the Executive Director as times, moments and actions that have mediated the geographic expansion and which we have tracked since 2011, is packaged by the Director of Operations as "a ready-made plan" from the Executive Director.In this sense, we realized that, over time, the geographic expansion was being crystallized as a "decision", even though there was no -in all conversations, interviews, observations, documents -evidence that there was "a decision" at stake, in the sense of a rational choice, among known alternatives, goals and choices.is means that the trail of relations is being erased, is crystallized in a single moment, and is objectified under the label "decision".
Decision 2: e change in the organization's (strategic) way of actingand how relations echo in the organizational process to the point of being "textualized" and "packaged".
On July 19 th , 2017, the author-in-the-field participated in a meeting with the President of [Institute of a Large Brazilian Company].In this meeting, were present the Executive Director, Director of Operations, Commercial Director, the Operations Analysts (from São Paulo and Curitiba), and the Chief Marketing Officer.In Figure 1 we present one excerpt from the Observation Report of the meeting, to better explain the issues, actions, and dialogues.We noted that this meeting was a moment when ASID members were open to discuss the organization's strategy, its mistakes, and successes.Also, it was a space for self-criticism and to (re)think about ASID's performance directions.As the meeting took place in mid-July 2017, the social enterprise was still at a delicate financial moment, and some restructuring actions were underway.
e meeting with the President of the Institute reverberate in several other meetings, conversations, and activities at ASID. e first one was on July 21st, 2017, at the leaders' assembly (ASID Board of Directors Meeting).is meeting was resumed in order to discuss changes in the way ASID operates, in fundraising, in the relationship and operation with the schools, and with ASID internal team management.We highlight an excerpt from the observation report of this day, in which the members of the board discuss the way of acting with the internal team based on the provocations made by the President of the Institute.In this meeting we noticed that the conversation with the President of the Institute generated instability in the way the ASID members (participants) think about their own actions, making them (re)think about their posture with the team, their methodologies and relationship with other stakeholders.At this meeting (07/21/2017) the Executive Director informs that he will prepare a document of the conversation with the President of the Institute to share with ASID other members who were not able to participate at the meeting, and thus "expand its dissemination" (in the Executive Director words).We emphasize that from the relationship with the President of the Institute, the issues are reworked internally, generating changes in the performance of the organization, as in the passage "For [Executive Director], based on what [President] said, they [directors] need" (see Figure 2).ere is no direct (causal) relationship between that conversation and the changes discussed by the group.From this second meeting on, there are countless moments of member interaction (board meetings, planning meetings, divisional meetings) in which ASID members (re)signify the previous conversation and propose new actions from that discussion.We understand that this past event is resumed at each moment of the interaction and still participates in the process.In other words, the interaction with the President of the Institute, as a specific moment of the organizing, starts to mediate the discussions from the second interaction (and others) and, therefore, also participates in the process.
We present in Figure 3 how the meeting with the President of the Institute takes on materiality as a "decision" to change how ASID works with the schools for people with disabilities.is movement is called [by them] as the "Ruler of Institutions".is ruler is created to indicate the degree of schools' development and the need for differentiated actions.is text (hybrid element) about the need for a gradation of schools that was indicated by the President of the Institute gain strength, it is organized as a form of methodology, and it is embodied into a tool (artefact).e members start to create levels, criteria, action plans and specific activities for each level of schools through the "Ruler of Institutions".We also highlight an excerpt from the interview with the Director of Operations in which the author-in-the-field asks about the "emergence" of the "Ruler of Institutions".Although the Director of Operations had participated in the meeting with the President of the Institute by teleconference, he attributes to the Executive Director the initial idea of the tool.We emphasize that it does not seem to us that the Director of Operations has forgotten or neglected to "remember" the meeting with the President of the Institute as one of the starting points in the creation of the "Ruler of Institutions".As this artefact is a relational element in production, the Director of Operations retrospectively points out other moments of interaction that were more "present" in this creation process, which highlights the relational aspect of the production of the text/ artefact.e narrative we presented illustrates how a moment of interaction reverberates in the organizational process, changes/adapts/moulds from later mediation episodes, gains materiality from the effect of these relations and becomes textualized as a decision and packaged in an organizational artefact.In this way, the text gains materiality, is crystallized/punctuated as a tool, and the relational traces (moments and places) that gave rise to it start being erased.erefore, this crystallized text becomes not only the effect of the network of relations but also starts to act and participate in the relational process.
At this point in the discussion, we believe it is relevant to present a question that emerges from the results of this investigation.Studies based on the Actor-Network eory tend to emphasize the "non-human" nature of the relational process, given that the "human" dimension has a long tradition of studies about its capacity of agency (Sayes, 2014).In Latour (2005), the theoretical innovation consists in the symmetric positioning that there is also agency in the relational articulation with non-human elements.In view of the narratives presented in this section, we highlight that the non-human elements are strongly articulated in one of the most fundamental human characteristics: the capacity to narrate (Fisher, 1989).As an actor (human) is able to plausibly articulate the non-human elements and mobilize them around a coherent text, this actor will occupy a central role the network and in the translation process (as we will detail in the next section).In any case, it is important to emphasize the centrality of the human activity of narrating in the performative process of decision making.us, the decision is not made in a single moment but is narratively articulated in a performative way in a text that crystallizes as a moment that can be called "the decision", giving space to a fundamental narrative momentum, which seems to those outside the relational network as something isolated, unique, substantial and objective.

e Trans(formative) Trajectory of e Decision
We seek to explore the trajectory of the hybrid entity to achieve a fixity status labelled the decision.In consonance with the relational ontology, we are not interested in proposing a sequential path, with clear defined steps, nor in fixing the "decision" as the final outcome of this trajectory.is trajectory is an ongoing translation journey ( Garud et al., 2018); therefore, even if a constitutive order is achieved, it is quite "fragile" (Callon, 2009), since the satisfactory conditions (felicitous conditions) that allowed this constitution would deconstruct the original order.e fragility pointed out by Callon (2009) supports the fluidity of the crystallized text as a decision.Based on these assumptions, in Figure 5 we illustrate the representation of the (trans)formative trajectory of the decision.In this illustration, we want to emphasize the non-existence of any predefined structure (a priori).However, due to the relations established in time and space, there is a relational stabilization of what we call "Relational Multiverse".e term multiverse is widely debated in cosmology studies ( Carr, 2007), but we adopted the term (in a translation process) to indicate a temporal space dimension in which relationships are built (Passoth et al., 2012).Since reality is neither objective nor singular to be treated as a universe, the term multiverse seemed to us be enough simplification to maintain the complexity minimally necessary to the process of theorization (Tsoukas, 2017), while maintaining the intentional contradiction simplicity-complexity.
To enter the relational space of the organizational relational multiverse, the text with different labels such as "ideas", "issues", "questions" is captured or motivated in other relational multiverses.By participating only partially in the "other multiverse", the actor (as a rule) captures only partially the text, which gives it a fuzzy character.We emphasize that the text (a network of heterogeneous relations) is stabilized in the multiverse of the "other".However, from the perspective of the non-central actor of the multiverse in question, the text seems to him/her only as a possibility.Besides, the relations of the actor(s) of the organizational relational multiverse with the text (which seems fuzzy to them) is sporadic in time and space.In this way, we can indicate that the substantiality of the text is ephemeral, of the many ideas and possibilities that we find in our daily lives, but with great translation capacity, given its instability in the network of organizational relations.
As they were stabilized in the relational multiverse of the other, these texts may be coupled with actors, artefacts, other texts, and/or theories, which facilitates their translation.Finally, as they are not stabilized in the organizational relational multiverse, these fuzzy texts have low legitimacy and authority towards the actors of this network, which hinders their participation in this multiverse.
Aer entering the network of relations of the Organizational Relational Multiverse, the fuzzy text starts to participate in the relationship system of this network.When being transported, the text transforms and is transformed, altering (element generating instability) the own organization of the network.e text gains relative centrality and becomes a matter of interest and concern (Vásquez et al., 2017), being a reason for interaction among members.We can say, for example, that the idea (fuzzy text) comes to the "discussion table", becomes "agenda point" at a given meeting and, then, becomes a bounded text to the multiverse of reference.
We present some excerpts in which we identify that the fuzzy text enters the organizational relational multiverse, becoming bounded to the actors' reference time-space: But the [Executive Director] called me, and I said to him, "I am super happy".And then I remember he even joked, "You'll be packing your bag in a little while to get there, right?".I already thought it might be a possibility to open São Paulo, open an office in São Paulo.And I liked it, and I started to like it.S6E2-Dec-2017-Operations Analyst.Our griffon.
I started seeing some things, exchanging an idea here, an idea there, and I bought the idea.at day in the Strategic Planning Meeting, I just suggested , I said: "What if we stopped executing and start to articulate more?".And so, we discussed, discussed, discussed, and it is going in the direction you know well.S1E4-Dec-2017-Director of Operations.Our griffon.
In these quotations the substantiality of the text is still low, as it is not yet stabilized in the relational system of reference.In this movement, there is a search for legitimacy and authority by the bounded text, which starts to participate more frequently (spatiotemporally) in the network interactions.ere is a multiplicity of ways this bounded text can follow on the ongoing trajectory.One possibility is to be stabilized in the network of relations, changing its status to "crystallized text".e text becomes a subject of relative agreement between the network members, gaining authority and formality in the multiverse of reference, and can even be coupled with artefacts, other texts and theories.In the sequence, we highlight one passage that illustrates a text crystallization: In the decision-making process to restructure ASID's activities, the very decision to revise the idea mobilized all actors to a different course of action when compared with what was being undertaken before .ey decided to change the performance, changed the team, created spreadsheets, control systems (i.e., new players came in, but there was also a change in the ties themselves and the organization of network), and this generated new information/action standards.OR2-Jan.-11-2017Our Griffon.
e crystallised text is packaged, giving it a relative substance, which is usually labelled as decision or choice.At this point, given the objectification of the text, the trajectory of previous relations (of transformation) ends up being invisible to other actors of the multiverse.
As in Decision 1 (expansion to São Paulo), non-central actors named the trajectory as the Executive Director decision.
At this moment, it is possible to problematize the question of translation.e translation shows that the whole process represented in Figure 5 does not occur spontaneously and, mainly, is not neutral.In the decisions 1 and 2 presented here, we can highlight that, in a retrospective narrative, different actors in the decision-making process pointed out a decision-maker: authorized in the mobilization phase of the translation as the spokesperson or the decision-maker of the network that was established and crystallized as a decision.It is not by chance that the Executive Director played this role due to his centrality, legitimacy and protagonism in the network.
If we go back to the processes of translation presented by Callon (1986), we can understand how the network of relations can culminate in a decision-maker and a decision.According to Callon (1986), the first process of translation is the problematization, which approximates the fuzzy text of the multiverse dimension and signs of a common point of passage appear.In Decision 1, it was the need for ASID's expansion, problematized by the councillors, not initially understood by some actors, justified and "rationalized" by the directors.In Decision 2, it was the stagnation calling for a strategic review, discussed by a member outside the organization, brought to the fore by the directors and endorsed by the organization actors who reviewed typical artefacts of organizational doing.
Another component of the translation process is the interessement, which means that in the multiverse of the fuzzy text, one begins to establish the bonds, positions and versions that will culminate in the enrolment.For Callon (1986), the enrolment is fundamental for the definition of the bounded text in the confluence of the multiverse of fuzzy text with the multiverse of crystallized texts.By circumscribing the text, talking about it, inserting oneself as an interested and active actor in the network, accepting its role and representing it in the network of relations, different actors begin to speak and materialize what will come to be the crystallized text.is crystallized text carries what we understand as decision-maker and decision.With the spokesperson defined, he/she is able to speak on behalf of the entire network and disseminate the crystallized text, making tenuous the relational traits that were part of the whole multiverse.is process shows the mobilization in the process of translation.e translated and crystallized text of the decision allows an observer (who does not know the relational clues) to understand it as a result of a universal, non-problematic and rational decision-making process.
From this description of the translation process, we can understand how the (trans)formation process occurs (since it is not linear, involving moments of negotiation, comings and goings between different moments of translation) and how decisions are sustained, to the extent that the crystallized texts are retrospectively narrated as a result of a process of rationalization, centred on decision-makers and quasi-objective analysis, insofar as they are recounted.
Finally, by reaching the nature of a crystallized text, it starts to perform (authorize), since, once stabilized in the network, the text participates in the mediation processes that gave rise to it.In this sense, without the crystallized text, the relations would not be the same; it becomes an "indispensable" actor for that relational multiverse of reference.We emphasize that even as a crystallized text, it is a consequence (nonlinear) of the arrangement of various actants (actors, artefacts, texts and theories).us, it does not make sense to isolate decisions in a relational ontology, because only through a description of the complex network of relations it is possible to understand the crystallized texts.erefore, decisions do not need to be restricted to a specific space, time, or individuals' mind, because they are (trans)formed on a journey of mediation among multiple and heterogeneous actants.When objectified as crystallized texts, decisions become performative, because they start to organize and participate in the constitution of the network reality.

Conclusion
In this study we describe the decision's fluidity as an unfinished text, in constant (re)production, getting importance in the network of relationships, transforming and being transformed into the trajectory of action.In its way towards quasi-objectivity, we suggest the (trans)formative trajectory of the decision.is trajectory is a serendipitous path of a fuzzy text that calls attention in a decisionmaking process and gains legitimacy and authority by its relationality.is theoretical framework allows us to extend the processual discussion of decision-making aligned with a relational ontology (Emirbayer, 1997;Nayak and Chia, 2011) and the time-process perspective.
Regarding the aspects of materiality and distributed agency, we track decisions in their trajectories composed by translation, packaging, and legitimacy/authority's gains, in addition to the substantial and objectivist view of the dominant approaches.Instead of being understood in a sequential and consequential manner, the elements of the organizational decision-making process (e.g.choices, ideas), are resignified as performative texts, which enter the system of relations and start producing the ongoing reality without consequentialisms.
Even scholars that adopted relational approaches to the use of the performative view (e.g.Merkus et al., 2014) had relegated these space-time issues in their studies.us, the idea of "organizational relational multiverse" as a space-time dimension of interaction and translation enabled us to track the multiple relations in fluid and horizontal environments and maintain the complexity in the analysis' process ( Tsoukas, 2017).In this sense, the methodological approach through narratives to access the processuality and performativity of the phenomenon under study has allowed us, in an original way, to explore and theorize this transformational movement.Instead of the usual well-known arrow of time, in which a precise process moves from an immutable past to an uncertain future (Dawson, 2014), we present an explanation adherent to process-time perspective (Reinecke & Ansari, 2017) in which there is no well-defined beginning or end, but only moments of translation, producing a reality in constant transformation.In our framework, time has not been transformed into a cause or reduced; and relationships have not been frozen into synchronic instantaneity.

[
e expansion to] São Paulo was smooth in August[2016]  ... we went definitely in October[2016].But in August the [ASID councillor] called me and said, "I've been asked for a project, which is precisely what you [ASID] do, which is help schools for people with disabilities in its management issues.I then called the [Potential Demanding Partner], and we closed in just a week the first project to be executed in São Paulo, which was 21,000[reais].It was arranged by phone.e [Representative of the potential partner] made the request, an hour and a half of skype conversation.I set up the proposal, forwarded the project to him, he liked it; and so, I set the price, forwarded it to him, presented it to his manager in the following week, and we closed the deal.[…].So, when we started in São Paulo, we already had [Partner] which was 21,000[real],[Other Potential Partner]  was in advanced negotiation, which was a great project, 54,000[real], and [ird Potential Partner] was in negotiation and was approved in 2017, a weighty one.Dec.-17-Executive Director.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Traces of the meeting with the President in subsequent talks at ASID

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Vignette "Extract from the ASID Director of Operation's Interview"

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. Scheme of Representation of the (Trans)Formative Trajectory of the Decision Source: e authors.