Purpose This paper aims to examine Halim Doğrusöz (1922–2019), a locally influential systems thinker with limited visibility in international management scholarship, through a two-phase approach that distinguishes knowledge translation (1960s–1970s) from institutional embedding (1980s–1990s). It analyzes how his career evolved from adapting operational research to developing indigenous knowledge production, situating his limited international visibility within both structural barriers and individual agency. Design/methodology/approach Using historical-interpretive methodology with systematic periodization and evidence evaluation, the study combines Doğrusöz’s memoir with institutional archives and colleague testimonies. Explicit periodization distinguishes phases by sources of influence, working methods and relationships to theoretical frameworks, with triangulation ensuring trustworthiness. Findings Phase 1 involved translating and institutionalizing operational research in Turkey through Middle East Technical University (METU) ’s operational research program, Sistem Bilimleri Araştırma Enstitüsü- System Sciences Research Institute BAREN (SIBAREN) and Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu - The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK) operational research unit. Phase 2 saw the 3E model (ethics, esthetics, empathy) develop through sustained institutional work in Turkish organizations. Documentary evidence, testimonies about working methods and citation patterns indicate that the model emerged primarily through organizational problem-solving rather than through continued engagement with the literature, though it addresses concerns similar to those in systems thinking. His limited international visibility reflects both systematic undervaluation of translation work in global recognition systems and deliberate disengagement from academic publishing. Research limitations/implications The institutional embedding claim rests on documentary evidence of institutional projects, testimonies about working methods focused on organizational practice and archival materials, evaluated through standard historical methods. Proving definitively that a scholar never encountered particular ideas through informal channels remains impossible in historical research. While focused on the Turkish context, this two-phase analytical approach provides a replicable approach for comparative studies of overlooked non-Anglophone thinkers. Practical implications The study diversifies management education by recognizing indigenous knowledge production and provides an approach for understanding knowledge circulation across global-local boundaries. Social implications The study contributes to debates on epistemic justice by documenting how locally influential knowledge production can remain weakly represented in dominant publication and citation circuits while acknowledging the interaction between structure and agency in shaping recognition. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper provides one of the most comprehensive English-language examinations of Dogrusöz, which develops an analytical approach that distinguishes translation from institutional embedding, challenges assumptions about the origins of management knowledge production and offers alternatives for contemporary practice.
Deniz Tunçalp (Mon,) studied this question.