{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018442622950819672, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.569506726457399, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Means-End Frames and the Politics and Myths of Organizational Fields

The processing of means-end frames is proposed as a key to understanding the reproduction and evolution of organizational fields. In lieu of regarding ‘rationalized myths’ as established social constructs that are diffused within a field, the present analysis looks into how the field constituents construct a rationalized myth, the operations through which they strive to accomplish this, and the unresolved divergences and problems tied to establishing shared understandings of central causal chains. It is argued that the social construction of means-end frames is central to preserving a shared understanding of an organizational field’s goals and the organizing principles by which these can be realized. In participating in the construction and interpretation of means-end frames the central actors reproduce and evolve the organizational field. The processing of means-end frames may contribute to both field reproduction and destabilization. Based on an analysis of the Danish hospital field, it is demonstrated how the processing of a means-end frame may serve several functions in an organizational field—the reproduction of the field, its trajectory, power structure, truces and overarching regime. But it may also contribute to field destabilization via the actors’ different interpretations and projects, the contestation of central institutions, or via unforeseeable consequences.