Institutional Framing

Frames are the cognitive categories or schema people use to describe, interpret, and sort events, issues, and entities for themselves and others to understand and predict their environment. Institutions can be described as a set of societal rules or expectations that govern interactions and/or as organizations created to achieve [Page 1138]a specific, collective purpose. The concept of institutional frames considers both descriptions. Institutional frames provide one a context for understanding the complex interrelationships among organizations and their policies, processes, products and services, and relationships with stakeholders.

Numerous social science disciplines including communications, economics, psychology, social psychology, political science, and organization studies use the concept of frames to explain a multiplicity of phenomena. Scientific inquiries have focused on the nature of frames and how frames influence a variety of outcomes including how risks are perceived, how decisions are made, how political issues are perceived, how social dilemmas are resolved, how ambiguity and change are managed, and how leadership is exercised. Although various disciplines use different terms to refer to and discuss frames, all converge on the concept that individuals do not passively perceive their environment. Instead, they actively (and often unconsciously) sift through information, constructing and applying meaning to their surroundings. The process of framing involves active interpretation of objects, events, and issues. Frames are interpretive devices that individuals use to understand their own world and that can be strategically used to shape the sense-making of others.

Cognitive frames are analogous to picture frames. Imagine framing a photograph: The way the photograph is matted and framed highlights some aspects of the photograph more than others. Certain matt colors and frame shapes can dramatically alter the appearance of the photograph, making particular aspects of it central and other aspects peripheral, and cutting some out entirely. A cognitive frame operates the same way: A given frame may emphasize certain aspects and angles of an issue, entity, or event and deemphasize or ignore other aspects. The way we frame an issue shapes our perception of reality and informs our future action.

Threats and opportunities are examples of important and commonly discussed frames in the organizational literature. When an individual categorizes or interprets an event as a threat, information is perceived and processed differently compared with how it would be if the event were categorized as an opportunity. Framing an event as a threat may initiate defensive strategies, whereas framing an event as an opportunity would most likely result in more innovative and creative responses. Similarly, research on ethics and framing suggests that if managers do not initially frame an issue as having ethical implications, ethical reasoning and decision making will not occur.

Organizational researchers have used institutional framing to help explain decisionmaking behaviors affecting various corporate stakeholder groups. For instance, how business strategy is framed is demonstrated to affect decisionmaking style. When decision makers frame their company's strategy as “cooperative,” decisions tend to be made participatively. When strategy is framed as “entrepreneurial,” decision makers tend to act autonomously. Also, the presence of sanctioning systems within an organization affects whether decision makers hold “business frames” or “ethical frames.” Business frames trigger decision makers to engage in cost-benefit analyses when deciding to act cooperatively versus competitively. Ethical frames are more likely to trigger cooperative behavior, regardless of the existence or strength of the sanctioning system.

...