Abstract
1. Introduction
Myths are widespread and significant for the functioning of organisations (Boje et al., 1982; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). They inform organisational culture, provide a sense of purpose and shape collective identities. Over time, the study of myths in organisations has been appropriated by two distinct literature streams: organisational storytelling and institutional theory. These two literatures have had very limited dialogue and few points of influence upon one another, despite their shared interest in myths. They present two different views on the role of myth in contemporary organisations. However, we believe that fostering a dialogue between these literatures can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the role myths play in organisational life. Such an integrative approach can address critical gaps that remain in our understanding of myths: Where do they originate? How are they created, disseminated and forgotten (Chowdhury et al., 2021)? How do the perspectives of organisational storytelling and institutional theory align or diverge in their treatment of myths?
The importance of understanding organisational myths is heightened in today’s rapidly evolving and interconnected global landscape, where organisations face mounting pressures to navigate cultural, ethical and institutional expectations. Myths are central to how organisations construct narratives that legitimise their practices, adapt to change and respond to societal demands. In this article, we understand myths as deeply believed stories that, through reenactment and reinterpretation, offer symbolic explanations for how things came to be and why certain practices or values hold significance (Eliade, 1963; Gabriel, 1991b). Whether rooted in narrative storytelling or institutional rationalisation, myths function as taken-for-granted frameworks that guide behaviour and/or confer legitimacy. They are not necessarily factually accurate, but they are socially ‘true’ – embedded in collective consciousness and used to shape meaning, identity and action within organisations. In the Australian context, this understanding is particularly relevant (Brammer et al., 2019). Australia’s multicultural society, its ongoing journey towards reconciliation with Indigenous communities, and its pivotal role in industries such as technology and environmental conservation underscore the need to critically engage with the myths shaping organisational and societal life. By exploring the lifecycle of myths, this article aims to provide a framework that enables us to navigate these complexities. While the principles of mythmaking are universal, this article draws on Australian examples of myth creation and diffusion to illustrate how myths shape organisations and society, providing valuable insights into this unique context.
We develop a theoretical model to explain the lifecycle of two types of myths in organisations: localised and rational. Localised myths emerge within specific organisational contexts, shaped by storytelling and cultural narratives that give meaning to organisational life (Boje et al., 1982; Gabriel, 1991b). In contrast, rational myths (Meyer and Rowan, 1977) are rooted in institutional environments, reflecting broader societal ideals such as the myth of rationality (March, 2006; Putnam and Mumby, 1993; Wehmeier, 2010). Rational myths prescribe formal structures, define organisational norms and provide taken-for-granted frameworks for legitimacy. Our model explores how localised myths, through processes like rationalisation, reenactment and depersonalisation, have the potential to transform into rational myths, gaining broader institutional significance. Drawing on archetypal frameworks (Eliade, 1960, 1963, 1965; Lévi-Strauss, 1992), we also show how myths shape organisational practices while simultaneously reflecting and influencing the broader cultural and institutional environment.
This article makes several theoretical contributions to the study of myths in organisations. First, it bridges two traditionally distinct streams of literature – organisational storytelling and institutional theory – by demonstrating how localised and rational myths are interconnected. While storytelling literature focuses on localised, context-specific narratives (Bowles, 1989), institutional theory examines how myths achieve broader legitimacy and structure through the rationalisation of organisational practices (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). By integrating these perspectives, we open a dialogue that enriches our understanding of myth creation and mythological consciousness in contemporary organisations (Cassirer, 1946; Gebser, 1985).
Second, we contribute to the theorisation of myth lifecycles, offering a process model of myth evolution from localised to rational forms as well as their persisting and forgetting. Our model highlights key mechanisms – archetype resonance, reenactment, rationalisation and depersonalisation – that unveil the evolution of myths. Introducing depersonalisation is an important development, addressing a previously missing piece in the literature by explaining how myths become detached from their original actors and contexts, gaining broader applicability and legitimacy. This lifecycle perspective provides new insights into how myths are created, gain legitimacy and adapt to shifting cultural and organisational priorities, as well as how myths are forgotten or lose relevance.
Finally, we demonstrate that localised myths, while rooted in specific organisational contexts, can shape broader institutional practices when they go through a process of rationalisation and depersonalisation. By identifying the processes that allow myths to achieve institutional prominence, we offer a framework for understanding the dynamic interplay between organisational storytelling and institutionalisation, advancing both fields of study.
2. Literature review
Organisational myths have been studied through two distinct streams of literature: organisational storytelling and institutional theory. While both approaches emphasise the significance of myths in shaping organisational practices, they offer different perspectives on their origins and functions. Because this article bridges these perspectives, we offer a brief overview of each literature, and explain what we mean by ‘myth’ at the end of the section.
2.1. Organisational storytelling
The literature on organisational storytelling highlights the critical role of narratives, stories and myths in shaping meaning and fostering shared cultural understanding within organisations. A narrative is a telling of actual or fictitious events or a connected sequence of events, offering a discursive account that organises and communicates experiences (Boje, 1991; Ganzin et al., 2014). Within narratives, stories emerge as structured plots with a linear sequence of events, including a beginning, middle and end, offering coherence and closure (Boje, 2001). Narratives act as a framework for storytelling, while stories, with their tangible plots and emotional resonance, bring narratives to life. As these stories are retold, reenacted and shared within organisations, they gradually transform into myths, acquiring symbolic significance and reinforcing cultural values and norms. Reenactment, in particular, is a crucial process in shaping and solidifying these myths (Eliade, 1965; Paca and Rozuel, 2024).
David Boje’s (1991, 1995) work positions organisations as ‘storytelling systems’, emphasising that narratives are continuously constructed and reconstructed to make sense of the organisational environment. This dynamic process not only helps organisations navigate ambiguity and adapt to change but also serves as a foundation for the creation of myths. Stories, as localised and context-specific accounts deeply rooted in the lived experiences of organisational members, form the basis from which myths emerge. These stories foster cultural alignment and contribute to the shaping of identity, and through reenactment and the addition of symbolic significance, they evolve within their contexts to become myths. In this way, storytelling enables organisations to maintain continuity and coherence, as myths encapsulate shared values and meaning that endure even amid external pressures and internal transformations (Boje, 2001; Gabriel, 1995). Given the contextual nature of the myths described in the organisational storytelling literature, we refer to these as localised myths in this article.
Building on the foundation of storytelling, Boje et al. (1982: 18) describe mythmaking as an ‘adaptive mechanism’ through which organisations respond to shifting environments by imbuing events and activities with meaning. Myths emerge as stories that, through reenactment and reinterpretation, transcend their original contexts and take on symbolic significance. These myths encapsulate shared desires, anxieties and aspirations, acting as powerful instruments of cultural cohesion and organisational identity (Gabriel, 1991a, 1991b, 1995). Gabriel (1995: 477) describes myths as ‘irrational constructions’ that offer cathartic release or inoculation against misfortune, forming what he terms an ‘unmanaged organisation’ – a space where emotions and cultural narratives thrive beyond formal managerial oversight. Similarly, Bowles (1989) underscores the role of ‘creative mythologies’ in shaping organisational culture, cautioning against the ineffectiveness of top-down myth creation and emphasising the organic, emergent nature of myths that resonate deeply with organisational members. By transforming stories into enduring symbolic frameworks, myths provide a means for organisations to adapt, embed collective meaning and sustain cultural and organisational coherence.
2.2. Institutional theory
Unlike the literature on organisational storytelling, institutional theory literature highlights the role of formal structure and institutional rules that function as rational myths (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Rational myths are shared meanings and concepts within broader culture that construe social structures and provide rationalised notions of how organisations should function (Hallett, 2010; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Zilber, 2006). Rational myths presuppose certain systematic properties because they define domains of activity, formal structure and other highly generalised principles of organisational governance (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). At the same time, they possess properties of myths such as periodical reenactment (Edelman et al., 1999; Eliade, 1963), and connection to mythological archetypes (Eliade, 1963, 1965) as well as mythic functions, including the facilitation of defining cultural norms and the prevailing social structure (Campbell, 1976; Rivers, 1912).
Mechanisms of diffusion are central to institutional theory, explaining how rational myths spread across organisations through coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Coercive pressures come from regulatory bodies or powerful stakeholders, while mimetic processes involve organisations imitating successful peers, especially under uncertainty. Normative isomorphism stems from professional standards and shared cultural norms. Through these mechanisms, rational myths become institutionalised and widely adopted, shaping organisational practices regardless of their practical efficacy.
Over the years, scholars have expanded on Meyer and Rowan’s concept. For example, Quaid (1993) focused on job evaluation as a form of institutional myth. She argues that ‘job evaluation is a myth because it is a process based on widely held beliefs that cannot be tested objectively’. Cox (2005) analysed the ideas that legitimate online education provided by colleges and argued that these ideas have taken on the status of myth. Boiral (2007) identified different strategies that companies employ to integrate ISO 14001 System and showed that most companies adopt the system ceremonially or that ISO 14001 is a rational myth. Zilber (2006, 2007) studied the translations of rational myths in high-tech industry. Hallett (2010) showed how ‘institutional myths and organisational practices that were once loosely connected become tightly linked’ on an example of an elementary school. At the same time, the importance of storytelling in maintaining managerial rational myths is acknowledged within the institutional theory literature. For example, Edelman et al. (1999) speculate that managerial stories become rational myths through retelling and reenactment.
Based on our review of both literatures, the primary distinction between localised and rational myths lies in their focus and purpose. Localised myths are deeply intertwined with identity and values, primarily addressing who we should or aspire
Despite the rich insights provided by organisational storytelling and institutional theory, there has been limited dialogue between these two literatures, leaving gaps in our understanding of how localised myths rooted in specific organisational contexts relate to and transform into rational myths embedded in institutional frameworks. The relationship between these two types of myths, including the processes that drive their creation, dissemination and eventual transformation, remains underexplored. This article addresses this gap by proposing a process model that bridges these perspectives, offering a dynamic framework to better understand the lifecycle of myths and their evolving role in shaping organisational and institutional dynamics.
2.3. Meaning of myth
Myths can be understood in two distinct ways. In everyday language and some scientific literature, myths are often regarded as untrue stories, delusions or false beliefs. As Ingersoll and Adams (1986: 365) observed in their study of contemporary usage, ‘myth [is] often seen as something antithetical to fact; myth is opposed to reality’. However, a contrasting perspective views myths as true stories – narratives deeply believed by members of the society in which they are told. This understanding, common among philosophers and anthropologists studying traditional societies, sees myths as foundational accounts that explain how something came into existence or how behaviours, institutions or practices were established. As Eliade (1963: 3) explains, ‘Myth . . . tells how something came into existence, or how a pattern of behaviour, an institution, a manner of working were established; this is why myths constitute the paradigms for all significant human acts’. Furthermore, Eliade distinguishes between myths as sacred, true stories and fictional accounts like fairy tales or fables. This distinction highlights the central role myths played in shaping traditional societies. For the purposes of this article, we understand contemporary myths as ‘true’ stories that are deeply believed by their audience, functioning as a framework for collective meaning and action.
Next, we present the theoretical framework underpinning our process model, which outlines the lifecycle of myths, from localised origins to their potential transformation into rational myths. We then discuss the implications of our findings, focusing on how the model enhances our understanding of organisational dynamics and offers insights for addressing cultural and institutional challenges. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of future research directions, emphasising the need to explore myth decay, renewal and the role of technology in shaping myths.
3. Process model of organisational myths lifecycle
Our recursive process model (Figure 1) illustrates the lifecycle of two key types of myths – localised myths and rational myths – and how they evolve, interact and contribute to the broader cultural landscape. In this model, we emphasise the pathway by which localised myths, which are rooted in specific organisational contexts and narratives, can transform into rational myths that resonate more widely across organisational settings. This transition occurs through reenactment, resonance with broader archetypes, and ultimately, the myth of rationality itself, allowing localised myths to detach from a specific context, gain legitimacy and enter institutional discourse as rationalised frameworks.
Lifecycle of organisational myths.
The transformation from localised to regional myths shown in the model is essential as it highlights the relationship between two often-separated streams in organisational theory: organisational storytelling literature, which addresses the role of localised, context-specific narratives and institutional literature, which explores how myths attain formalised, widely accepted status within organisations. By explaining the process of myths lifecycle, we connect these perspectives. We believe that understanding this process enriches theorising about the lifecycle of myths in organisations, capturing how myths shift between specific, localised origins and broader, institutionalised forms.
We now present a step-by-step overview of the process, focusing on its components (represented as boxes) and their connections (depicted as arrows). Our explanation of the model begins with narrative construction, which serves as the foundation of mythmaking. Next, we explore the development of localised myths and rational myths. Finally, we conclude by examining the outcomes of the mythmaking process and its impact on the broader cultural context. This discussion highlights the cyclical nature of the model, demonstrating the connection between broader cultural contexts with the narrative construction.
3.1. Narrative construction
Each organisation and its actors are embedded within a broader cultural context that shapes how people think and provides them with templates of cognitive structures, narrative constructions and acceptable ways to arrange the chaos around them, as well as ways to create plausible historical accounts (Jung, 1954; Bourdieu, 1991; Munz, 1956). Events, especially unusual ones, prompt individuals to construct narratives to understand and interpret these occurrences. People create narratives because it is a simple and intuitive way to process information and analyse past events. Weick (1995) notes that people ‘pull words from vocabularies of sequence and experience and make sense using narratives’ (p. 107). Narrative construction is the first cognitive mechanism to which people turn, as they tend to think narratively first and perhaps only then argumentatively or paradigmatically (Weick, 1995: 127; Bruner, 1990). This emphasis on narrative construction is an important element of organisational life. Weick (1995) argues that ‘most organisational realities are based on narration’ (p. 127). The importance of narrative construction and storytelling has been extensively explored within the organisational storytelling literature (Boje, 1991, 1995; Czarniawska, 2004). It suggests that organisations cannot function without stories (Beigi et al., 2019; Mitroff and Kilmann, 1975) because they are the main tool for a ‘never-ending construction of meaning in organizations’ (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1998: 15).
3.2. Localised myths
Localised myths are manifested at the individual, group and organisational levels as
3.2.1. From narrative construction to localised myths
Localised myths are created and maintained through the reenactment of stories. Stories that are told and, most importantly, retold and reenacted in organisations gradually become myths that shape organisational experience. Stories can be constructed either by the employees (individuals at the lower hierarchy of an organisation) (Beigi et al., 2019; Boudens, 2005) or the top managers (Frandsen et al., 2017; Rhodes and Brown, 2005).
Reenactment happens through the organisation’s rituals or routines (Bowles, 1989; Gabriel, 1995). This could be done through repeated storytelling during onboarding sessions, team-building exercises or incorporated in promotion initiatives where values and principles linked to the story are highlighted. Such reenactment often includes symbolic actions that embody the essence of the story. For instance, an organisation that reenacts the story of resilience might do it through awards or celebrations recognising employees who exemplify resilience. These actions allow members to live out the principles of the story, making it relevant to their roles and lives within the organisation. As the story is reenacted, it becomes part of the organisation’s collective memory. Members identify with the story, feeling part of a larger narrative that transcends their individual contributions. This shared sense of identity helps the story gain mythic status, guiding behaviour, shaping values and setting standards for what is considered virtuous within the organisation. For example, a not-for-profit organisation, Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA), which rescues swimmers in dangerous waters, centres on the bravery and selflessness of surf lifesavers, particularly during extreme conditions like large surf or storms. Stories of lifesavers risking their lives to rescue swimmers have become central to the organisation’s identity and to the mythmaking of this organisation. These stories are retold in training sessions, ceremonies, in public service campaigns, TV shows (such as
However, not all stories told in organisations become reenacted. To be reenacted, stories must resonate with organisational members on the level of collective unconscious (Eliade, 1963; Jung, 1921) manifested in archetypes, which Jung postulated to be universal for all individuals (Jung, 1954). Bowles (1990: 406) states that ‘all human experience is potentially archetypal’, yet some archetypes, such as of the mother, the father, the divine child, the hero, the Self, the anima/animus, and death and birth, can appear to be more visible than others. Most organisational mythmaking starts at the individual level when the historical actions of a person are seen through a prism of mythological perception of reality (Barthes, 1957; Campbell, 1949). For instance, a manager’s resilience during a crisis may be retold as a story of heroism, or an employee’s dedication might become a tale of loyalty. As members of an organisation engage with these stories, they don’t just remember events but also embody and enact the values these myths represent. Members of the group value such myths and accept them (Gabriel, 1991a; Gabriel, 1991b). Successful myths in the group must fulfil some important role for its members. Such roles could be pain alleviation, collective sensemaking/sensegiving, power distribution/allocation and so on. ‘As a collective wish-fulfilment, the myth becomes a group’s most highly prized possession, a genuine heritage’ (Gabriel, 1991a: 865).
Localised myths often employ epic or heroic archetypical frameworks (Campbell, 1949; Ganzin et al., 2014). Heroic motifs can depict Robin Hood, David and Goliath, or Sisyphus or other recognised mythical characters who went through trials and meaningful encounters. These myths can include criticism of the system, but they resonate well with the broader audience and show the organisation in a favourable light. Successful epic stories are ‘often elevated from folklore to official mythology. The employee who defies storms, earthquakes and other adversities to discharge his or her mission, the executive who cuts the red tape of bureaucracy with the aplomb of Alexander the Great cutting the Gordian knot, the little man rising to the top, the big man coming to the rescue of everyone else’ (Gabriel, 1991b: 435). Often, people would prescribe additional meanings to events that are quite ordinary, elevating them to the status of heroic deeds.
Other myths can employ an archetypical framework of a hero trickster (Jung, 1951a). ‘Stories of hero trickster figures whose trial is the confrontation with management representatives, and who perform great feats of cleverness in outsmarting management, are of great importance in creating a sub-culture which limits the overall control of management, and which serves to enforce the dialectic between management and labour’ (Bowles, 1989: 414). Often sneaky, unpredictable or chaotic, the trickster challenges rigid structures and organisational norms and introduces change. Whistleblower Jeff Morris, a former financial planner with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), exemplifies the trickster myth in Australian corporate culture. In 2008, Morris secretly reported unethical practices in CBA’s financial planning division to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and eventually the media, leading to the 2014
Organisational myths based on the archetype of animus (the masculine aspect of the individual psyche) (Jung, 1951b) have also become recognised in the organisational storytelling literature (Paca and Rozuel, 2024). It often reflects masculine qualities, such as assertiveness, resilience and protective strength, in female characters. A good example is Gail Kelly, who began her career as a bank teller in South Africa in the 1970s and became the first female CEO of St. George Bank (in 2002) and the highest-paid woman in an Australian corporation (in 2005). Gail Kelly’s story resonated widely with the public as a powerful narrative of female strength and resilience. She became a living example that dedication, resilience and strategic thinking could propel a woman to the pinnacle of corporate success, even in traditionally patriarchal fields like banking.
Because localised myths often emerge around a specific person or group of people, they are not pervasive and widespread but limited to the specific organisational context or location. These myths change easily if new narratives around that person start to emerge. For instance, Peter Garrett, renowned as the lead singer of Midnight Oil and later as a politician, has been the subject of various localised myths. In the 1980s and 1990s, Garrett was revered for his hard-hitting messages about environmental destruction, Indigenous rights and social justice. He was mythologised as a genuine ‘man of the people’. When Garrett transitioned into politics in 2004 as a member of the Australian Labor Party, the narrative surrounding him began to shift. Initially, many believed he would bring his unwavering values into the political sphere and push for substantial reforms. However, during his tenure as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, he faced significant challenges, notably during the rollout of the Home Insulation Program in 2009–2010. The programme, though aimed at reducing carbon emissions, faced widespread criticism due to safety oversights that tragically led to multiple fatalities. Garrett was held accountable for these failings, and the narrative surrounding him shifted from being a ‘warrior’ to a ‘traitor’. ‘Stories in the unmanaged organisation are far more plastic than those embedded in official mythologies, and have a strong tendency to mutate into other stories and merge with them’ (Gabriel, 1995: 495). This is because localised myths are idiosyncratic and do not consistently dominate multiple contexts. ‘The same story may feed alternative core texts or myths, some of which may be competing and some not’ (Gabriel, 1991a: 870).
3.3. Rational myth
Meyer and Rowan (1977) understood rational myths as institutionalised structures and practices that are taken for granted as legitimate, even if their effectiveness is uncertain. At the same time rational myths, such as formal organisational structures or ceremonial practices, are sustained through reenactment and ritual, reinforcing their legitimacy. Just like any other myths, rational myths are ‘true’ accounts that are believed in by the audience in which they are reenacted. Quaid (1993), through her example of job evaluations, emphasises that rational myths are believed in by all audiences that are involved. ‘It is believed to the extent that it has become a “taken for granted” reality. It is true because it is believed’ (p. 257). Or, as Edelman, Uggen and Erlanger (1999) put it: ‘One of the key features of rational myths is that they appear so obvious that no one questions their veracity; they just seem right’ (p. 416). The functions of rational myths are for the most part aimed at the maintenance of social order (Quaid, 1993: 259). This is consistent with the social function of myths at large, which is to define the moral and ethical codes for people of a certain culture, and help define that culture and its prevailing social structure. Campbell, (1949, 1976) explains that the sociological function of myth is to sustain and validate a particular social order. The myth makes it clear who is in charge, what is the correct ethical code and what the institutional rituals are. Rivers (1912) argues that social is at the heart of myth: ‘the primary motive of a myth, or of some part of a myth, [is] to give an account of the coming into being of a social institution’ (p. 311). Moreover, myths suggest models for social institutions (Hégy, 1991: 7) since they are models for all human behaviour (Eliade, 1963).
An important element of rational myths is their reenactment through retelling of stories (Edelman et al., 1999: 408) and observance of rituals and ceremonies (Cox, 2005; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Quaid, 1993). Through the reenactment a distinctive language and rhetoric emerges (Quaid, 1993: 259), that has been described as metaphoric or ritual language (Cox, 2005) and language games and ceremonial statements that ‘create an appearance of rationality, conformity, and success’ (Boiral, 2007: 143). Through these very powerful means a symbolical work is being done, which turns impossible and indeterminable processes, actions and orders into possible and determinable (Quaid, 1993). Another important characteristic is that rational myths are usually a part of the broader institutional environment. This is different from the localised organisational myths, which usually exist at the level of groups, departments and the organisation as a whole.
Finally, rational myths are different from localised myths in that they are primarily concerned with employing universal (Townley, 2008) or scientific rationality. As rational myths are created, a narrative of rationality is being used to create a basis and explanation of the myth. Rational myths are powerful and widespread because they stand on a rational basis and are often supported by rational means such as information based on statistical analysis, systematic descriptions of social phenomena and the use of quantifiable information and other scientific or quasi-scientific methods and accounts. Rational myths are based on the broader mythology of rationality (March, 2006; Putnam and Mumby, 1993; Wehmeier, 2010) that is prevalent in contemporary society. The mythology of rationality is the most widespread belief in today’s world, thus rational myths are so easily accepted and taken for granted.
3.3.1. From narrative construction to rational myth: rationalisation and reenactment
Rational myths originate through a progression that begins with the narrative construction of a perceived need or desirable standard, leading to the institutionalisation of practices that gain legitimacy independent of their actual effectiveness. This process starts with social pressure, a change in market demand, technological change, or regulatory ambiguity, where organisations face pressure to demonstrate compliance or legitimacy without clear guidelines on how to achieve it (Boiral, 2007; Cox, 2005; Edelman et al., 1999; Quaid, 1993). In response, influential actors, such as thought leaders, consulting firms or professional associations, step in to interpret these ambiguous demands, proposing specific practices they claim to fulfil the standard. As these practices spread through professional networks, they gain endorsement as ‘best practices’ and are further embedded in organisational routines. Institutional endorsement follows, where regulatory bodies or prominent organisations legitimise these practices, transforming them into standards that signal compliance and professionalism. Over time, the practices’ practical effectiveness may diminish in importance as their symbolic value grows, solidifying their status as rational myths.
Two important processes shape the emergence of a rational myth – rationalisation and reenactment. Rationalisation involves creating a logical or systematic explanation that justifies a particular practice, often appealing to efficiency, compliance or other widely valued principles. In the face of ambiguity or social pressure, actors rationalise practices by framing them as reasonable and necessary solutions, even when their actual effectiveness is uncertain. This rationalised framework helps practices gain legitimacy, as they appear aligned with norms and expectations in the organisational field. Reenactment, on the other hand, occurs as these rationalised practices are repeated and disseminated across contexts, solidifying their status through routine adoption. Each reenactment reinforces the perception that these practices are valuable and expected, regardless of their original intent or outcomes. Over time, these reenactments create a cycle of institutionalisation, where organisations adopt the practices primarily to signal alignment with accepted standards rather than to achieve direct results. Through rationalisation and reenactment, a practice gradually transforms into a rational myth, upheld for its symbolic legitimacy in the organisational landscape.
We also must keep in mind that the rationalisation of practices that culminate in rational myths is not a neutral process. It often privileges dominant forms of rationality, particularly managerial or instrumental, while marginalising alternative perspectives rooted in ethics, care or local context. This process embeds specific values into organisational life, often presenting them as self-evident or inevitable. As a result, rational myths carry implicit assumptions about whose rationality counts and whose does not, reinforcing institutional hierarchies and narrowing the space for pluralism (Chowdhury, 2017; Khan et al., 2010). Moreover, the very
The ‘zero harm’ concept in Australian workplace health and safety (WHS) exemplifies how a narrative transforms into a rational myth through rationalisation and reenactment. This process begins with rationalisation: in response to heightened public scrutiny and government regulations around workplace safety during the 1980s and 1990s, industries like mining and construction reframed safety through the ideal of ‘zero harm’, a commitment to prevent all workplace injuries. WHS consultants, industry leaders and government bodies promoted ‘zero harm’ as a standard that aligned with growing societal expectations of corporate responsibility (Gunningham, 2008). Although achieving absolute safety was practically challenging, this ideal was rationalised as an essential commitment to moral and professional standards.
Reenactment further solidified ‘zero harm’ as a pervasive organisational norm. Through industry conferences, WHS training programmes and policies embedded within companies, the ‘zero harm’ commitment was reenacted across organisations, diffusing widely and becoming an accepted part of workplace culture. These reenactments – prominently featured in corporate reports and slogans – helped entrench ‘zero harm’ not merely as a goal but as a powerful symbol of safety compliance and professionalism. Over time, organisations continued to adopt and repeat the ‘zero harm’ ideal to legitimise themselves within regulatory frameworks and signal their alignment with social expectations, even as they faced critiques that the concept encouraged superficial compliance over meaningful change (Provan et al., 2017). Thus, ‘zero harm’ evolved from an ambitious safety target to a rational myth, embraced by organisations not necessarily for practical outcomes but for its ability to confer legitimacy in the Australian organisational landscape.
3.3.2. From local myth to rational myth: rationalisation and depersonalisation
Rational myths do not only originate straight from narratives constructed around social pressures, institutional change or regulatory ambiguity; they can also emerge from existing localised myths. As we have mentioned previously, localised myths are created through stories of individual or group actions that embody the organisation’s values and are celebrated within its immediate culture. They are powerful in aligning members with shared values and establishing models for behaviour. However, their impact is often limited to specific groups or events within an organisation. When a localised myth resonates broadly, tapping into universal themes or archetypes, it may evolve into a rational myth through processes of rationalisation and depersonalisation.
Rationalisation is a crucial mechanism that enables localised myths to transform into rational myths by recasting specific stories or actions as universally applicable principles. This process typically involves the use of formal tactics, including statistical reinforcement, logical structuring and systemic framing, to legitimise and generalise the myth. Rationalisation incorporates systemic approaches, where the generalised narratives are embedded in training programmes, procedural guidelines or organisational standards, presented as evidence-based ‘best practices’. These tactics strip away the personal or situational aspects of the original story, portraying the myth as a logical response to broader organisational goals. This abstraction creates a sense of objectivity, casting the myth as part of a rational framework that aligns with the organisation’s mission, values or regulatory expectations.
Depersonalisation complements rationalisation by shifting focus away from the specific individuals or groups initially involved, instead embedding the myth within more general principles, goals or ideals. Through depersonalisation, the myth becomes an impersonal standard, applicable to all employees rather than tied to its original actors. This transition often occurs through reenactment in formal settings such as onboarding sessions, training modules or corporate ceremonies, where the myth’s themes are emphasised without reference to the individuals or events that inspired them. Over time, the myth becomes institutionalised (Quaid, 1993), reflecting an organisational ideal that members are expected to uphold. This reenactment not only perpetuates the myth but also allows new employees to internalise it as part of the organisation’s values, creating a shared sense of identity. By framing the myth as a collective legacy rather than an individual story, depersonalisation supports the idea that these values are universal, reinforcing its legitimacy and aligning it with societal expectations.
Together, rationalisation and depersonalisation allow a localised myth to transition into a rational myth, upheld less for its specific details than for its symbolic value. This transition detaches the myth from its origins, allowing it to operate as a legitimising force within the organisation. Members continue to engage with and enact the myth not because it is practically necessary but because it signals their alignment with institutional values and cultural norms. However, this process of abstraction and legitimisation is not without consequence. As myths become institutionalised and circulate as symbolic markers of value or legitimacy, they may impose dominant interpretations that obscure or overwrite alternative experiences. In doing so, they risk enacting forms of symbolic or epistemic violence – silencing those whose perspectives are not reflected in the dominant narrative or are rendered unintelligible within institutional discourse (Chowdhury, 2021a; Khare and Varman, 2017). This underscores the importance of critically attending to whose realities are represented, and whose are excluded, as myths evolve within organisations.
The rise of Landcare, a grassroots environmental movement focused on sustainable land management and community-led conservation, exemplifies how a localised myth centred around an influential individual can evolve into a widely accepted, legitimising standard of behaviour in Australia. Initially, Landcare emerged as a community-driven response to the risk of environmental degradation affecting rural Australia in the 1980s, including issues such as soil erosion and salinity that threatened both agricultural productivity and local ecosystems. With growing pressures on farmers and landholders to adopt sustainable practices, the government recognised the need for a grassroots approach to conservation but lacked a clear framework for mobilising communities (Lockwood, 2000).
Rick Farley, working with the National Farmers’ Federation and the Australian Conservation Foundation, was instrumental in shaping Landcare as a unifying movement. Farley’s commitment to bridging the gap between agricultural interests and environmental needs helped define the Landcare ethos. He quickly became a symbol of the movement’s collaborative spirit, casting him in a heroic light as someone willing to challenge convention and unite diverse groups for a common cause (Brown and Boden, 2012). This localised myth around Farley and the early Landcare movement imbued it with a sense of purpose, reinforcing values of environmental stewardship and cooperation that resonated deeply within the rural Australian context.
Rationalisation played a critical role in transforming Landcare from a localised myth into a rational myth. As Landcare gained traction, it was reframed as a scientifically supported, systematic approach to environmental management. Government and industry actors employed formal tactics, such as incorporating Landcare metrics into national policy, presenting data on community engagement and using statistical measures to highlight improvements in soil and water health. By integrating Landcare into policy documents and framing it as an evidence-based model for sustainable rural practice, the movement was elevated from a grassroots response to a nationally validated framework. This rationalisation process – relying on statistics, logical justifications and structured frameworks – abstracted the movement from its local origins, portraying Landcare as a rational response to Australia’s environmental challenges. Consequently, it gained legitimacy as a ‘best practice’ model, one that could ostensibly address both environmental and agricultural needs across diverse contexts.
As Landcare spread, depersonalisation further cemented it as a rational myth. While Rick Farley’s personal involvement had been pivotal in establishing Landcare’s credibility, the myth of Landcare gradually detached from its association with him, transforming into an impersonal standard of environmental responsibility. Through reenactment in various community settings, including workshops, training sessions and government-backed initiatives, Landcare’s ideals of collaboration and stewardship became embedded across rural Australia. Communities adopted the Landcare model, integrating its values into their daily operations and, in doing so, reenacted and reinforced its principles. This repeated enactment across different settings helped depersonalise the myth, making it less about individual heroes and more about collective community action. The Landcare logo and brand became a widely recognised symbol of environmental care, representing a shared Australian identity and responsibility.
Over time, Landcare has become more than just a movement; it has solidified as a rational myth, an idealised model of community-driven environmental stewardship. Today, the Landcare emblem is widely adopted by farmers, landholders and even corporations, who use it to signal their commitment to sustainability, often irrespective of the specific outcomes achieved. While research has shown that the environmental impact of Landcare projects varies, with some initiatives achieving notable success and others seeing limited effects, the movement’s symbolic power as a hallmark of Australian environmentalism has only grown (Campbell and Siepen, 1994). As a rational myth, Landcare endures as a cultural icon of rural environmental responsibility, reflecting broader societal values and enabling organisations and individuals alike to symbolically align themselves with socially esteemed environmental ideals.
3.4. Aftermath of myth creation
In this concluding section of our process model, we describe what unfolds after myth creation and how myths shape the broader cultural context. Following their creation, both localised and rational myths face two possible fates: persistence through resonance or eventual fading into obscurity.
3.4.1. Resonance and forgetting of localised and rational myths
Resonance and forgetting are key processes that determine the lifecycle of myths in organisations, influencing their persistence or decline. While localised and rational myths differ in their origins and scope, they share underlying mechanisms that govern their resonance and forgetting, alongside distinct differences in how these processes manifest.
Localised myths emerge within specific groups or organisational contexts and derive their power from personal narratives that resonate deeply with the immediate culture. When they resonate strongly, these myths are continuously retold, reenacted, and integrated into the organisation’s identity, shaping values and influencing behaviour over time. For example, a story of an employee’s extraordinary dedication can foster a culture of loyalty and commitment that extends beyond the story’s original context. Similarly, rational myths, rooted in broader frameworks of rationality and institutional legitimacy, achieve resonance through their alignment with widely accepted norms and practices. When rational myths resonate broadly, they reinforce their legitimacy and become deeply embedded in organisational and cultural landscapes, often going unquestioned. A common example is the myth of ‘organisational efficiency’, which persists across industries as a foundational goal.
Forgetting, on the other hand, occurs when myths lose relevance. Localised myths are often forgotten due to internal changes such as the retirement of key storytellers, organisational restructuring or shifts in collective attention. Without continued resonance or relevance, these myths diminish in importance, eventually becoming simple stories rather than active influences on organisational behaviour. Rational myths, although more systemically entrenched, are similarly vulnerable to forgetting when broader cultural or institutional shifts render them obsolete. Changes in societal values, technological advancements or regulatory frameworks can undermine the legitimacy of rational myths. For instance, job classification systems, once seen as essential for pay determination, lost their relevance and were eventually abandoned as organisational realities evolved (Quaid, 1993).
Despite their similarities, the processes of resonance and forgetting differ in scope and mechanisms. Localised myths are tied to specific organisational contexts and rely heavily on personal and cultural connections within those settings. They are more vulnerable to changes in the immediate environment, such as the departure of key individuals or shifts in internal priorities. Rational myths, by contrast, operate on a broader scale, drawing their strength from systemic alignment with institutionalised frameworks of rationality. Their resonance tends to persist across organisations and industries, but their decline often reflects larger societal or structural changes rather than internal dynamics alone.
Ultimately, resonance and forgetting highlight both the enduring and transient nature of myths in organisations. Resonant myths, whether localised or rational, reinforce cultural norms and institutional practices, influencing behaviours and values across varying contexts. Forgotten myths, by contrast, lose their power and fade from relevance, creating space for new myths to emerge. The interplay of these processes ensures that myths remain central to the shifting priorities, identities and narratives of organisations, reflecting their capacity to both maintain continuity and adapt to change.
3.4.2. The recursive influence of myths on cultural context
Finally, an important outcome of myth creation is its lasting influence on the broader cultural context surrounding organisations and institutions. When new myths – whether localised or rational – are created and disseminated, they do not merely shape internal organisational practices and values; they can also impact the larger societal narratives and cultural expectations that frame organisational life. Localised myths, for instance, may highlight specific values or behaviours that extend beyond their immediate context, promoting qualities like resilience or innovation. Rational myths, with their alignment to perceived norms of rationality and institutional standards, can have an even broader cultural impact, setting standards and shaping the language around ‘best practices’, efficiency or professionalism. Over time, these myths become benchmarks or exemplars, shaping cultural values by reinforcing certain ideals and behaviours. This impact is cyclical: as myths shape the cultural context, they influence the narratives that serve as the foundation for new myths, embedding particular values and ideals into the fabric of organisational and societal expectations. In this way, myths continuously renew and transform the cultural landscape, guiding the evolution of future myths and reinforcing the values that organisations aspire to reflect.
4. Discussion and conclusion
In this article, we have presented a recursive process model that traces the lifecycle of organisational myths, offering a nuanced understanding of how they emerge, evolve and resonate within broader institutional and cultural contexts. By examining the dynamic processes through which localised myths, rooted in specific organisational settings, transform into rational myths embedded within institutional frameworks, we bridge insights from organisational storytelling and institutional theories, encouraging further cross-pollination of ideas between these two streams of literature. Our model sheds light on the mechanisms, such as resonance, reenactment and rationalisation, that allow myths to transcend their origins and achieve cultural legitimacy. In this section, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the model, outlining its contributions to organisational scholarship and its potential to enrich the analysis of organisational myths.
The first theoretical contribution of this article is the integration of organisational storytelling and institutional theories, which are often treated as distinct areas of research. Organisational storytelling focuses on the creation and maintenance of localised, context-specific narratives, while institutional theories examine how practices and ideas gain legitimacy and become widely accepted across organisational fields. By connecting these two domains, our process model reveals how localised myths, emerging through storytelling within specific organisational settings, can transition into rational myths that carry institutional significance. This integration enriches our understanding of how myths serve as bridges between the micro-level dynamics of individual and group sensemaking and the macro-level processes of institutionalisation. It highlights the interplay between narrative resonance and institutional pressures, showing how organisational myths both shape and are shaped by broader cultural and institutional norms. This synthesis offers a more holistic framework for understanding the lifecycle of myths in organisations, advancing both fields by demonstrating their interdependence.
The second theoretical contribution of this article lies in its elucidation of the lifecycle of organisational myths. Our process model provides a detailed, recursive framework that captures the dynamic evolution of myths, from their origins in localised narratives to their institutionalisation as rational myths. By identifying key mechanisms, such as resonance with archetypal themes, reenactment, rationalisation and depersonalisation, we articulate how myths emerge, gain traction and eventually become embedded within organisational and institutional contexts. This lifecycle perspective not only clarifies the processes through which myths acquire legitimacy and cultural significance but also addresses how they adapt over time, aligning with shifting organisational and societal priorities. By emphasising the continuous interplay between creation, transformation and institutionalisation, the model advances existing theories on mythmaking by offering a comprehensive view of myths as dynamic, evolving phenomena rather than static, isolated constructs. This understanding deepens our ability to analyse and interpret the role of myths in shaping organisational culture and practices.
The third theoretical contribution of this article is the conceptualisation of rationalisation and depersonalisation as key mechanisms in the transformation of localised myths into rational myths. Rationalisation involves distilling ideas or principles from localised narratives and presenting them as universally applicable through formal tactics such as statistical reinforcement, logical structuring and systemic framing. This process abstracts the myth from its specific origins, enabling it to align with broader organisational or societal objectives. Depersonalisation complements this by detaching the myth from the individuals or groups that initially embodied it, embedding it within organisational standards, rituals and practices. Together, these mechanisms explain how localised myths, often tied to particular events or actors, are reinterpreted and generalised to gain institutional legitimacy and (often) longevity. By identifying these processes and their interplay, the model provides a structured framework for understanding how myths transition from the personal and specific to the impersonal and universal. This conceptualisation not only advances theories on myth institutionalisation but also enriches broader discussions on how cultural narratives achieve widespread acceptance and influence within organisational contexts.
The insights from this article may be applicable across various organisational and societal challenges (Brammer et al., 2019), particularly in addressing issues related to culture, leadership (Collins et al., 2020) and institutional legitimacy. By understanding how localised narratives evolve into rational myths, organisations can be aware of how narratives and practices may acquire additional significance and meaning. This framework is particularly valuable for organisations in rapidly evolving industries, such as technology, and in fields shaped by strong ideological undercurrents, such as diversity and sustainability. In both contexts, meaningful and authentic narratives are essential for guiding action, building legitimacy and ensuring long-term resonance with stakeholders. In addition, in areas like organisational culture, this model can guide leaders in identifying myths that foster alignment and cohesion, while also cautioning against practices that may dilute their meaning as they become institutionalised.
The process model outlined in this article provides a framework for recognising when practices or narratives transition into rational myths, revealing their potential to become symbolic rituals disconnected from their original purpose. For instance, the practice of acknowledging the land in Australia began as a deeply meaningful act, recognising Indigenous sovereignty, histories and the ongoing impacts of colonisation. Over time, as this practice has been institutionalised in organisational and public settings, it risks becoming a rational myth – performed routinely to signal compliance with societal expectations and reinforce legitimacy, rather than fostering genuine reflection or action towards reconciliation. This shift illustrates how a practice, initially rooted in profound cultural and ethical significance, can be stripped of its transformative power as it becomes habitualised and taken for granted. Recognising such transitions allows organisations to critically assess whether their practices are achieving their intended impact or merely serving as legitimating rituals, encouraging efforts to reintegrate authenticity and purpose.
Our model offers several directions for future research, highlighting opportunities to deepen our understanding of the lifecycle of organisational myths and their role in shaping culture, leadership and institutional practices. Future research could delve deeper into the processes of myth decay and renewal, particularly in dynamic organisational contexts. While this article highlights the lifecycle of myths, less is known about what leads to their decline or revitalisation. Myths may lose resonance due to shifts in cultural norms, technological disruptions or changes in leadership. For example, a motivating myth may become irrelevant in a rapidly evolving industry. Investigating the triggers for myth decay and the mechanisms organisations use to reinvigorate or replace outdated myths could offer insights into adaptability and resilience. Research could also explore deliberate myth renewal efforts, identifying strategies to re-establish narrative relevance.
Another promising avenue is exploring the interplay between localised and rational myths. Organisations often contain both, especially in global or fast-changing environments. Localised myths rooted in specific contexts may conflict with rational myths prioritising universal standards. For example, a myth emphasising community values might clash with one centred on efficiency. Understanding how organisations navigate these tensions can shed light on maintaining cultural and institutional coherence. In addition, this could reveal how organisations use localised and rational myths to meet diverse stakeholder expectations. Building on archetypal dimensions, future research could examine why certain archetypes resonate more strongly in specific cultural or organisational contexts. Archetypes like the hero (Ganzin et al., 2014) or trickster may hold varying appeal depending on the industry or cultural background, offering deeper insights into crafting resonant narratives.
Future research could also examine how organisational myths emerge through representational dynamics, including how certain groups come to author dominant narratives while others are spoken for or omitted. This raises important questions about the politics of voice and visibility in narrative construction. Building on recent work that critiques epistemic exclusion and highlights the ethical stakes of self-representation (Chowdhury, 2021b, 2023), further studies could explore how myths reflect or obscure the perspectives of marginalised actors, and what this means for legitimacy and cultural resonance over time.
Finally, the role of technology in shaping myths warrants further exploration (Collins et al., 2020), particularly as the construction of narratives becomes increasingly influenced by algorithms. Digital tools and AI are not only influencing how narratives and myths are shared and institutionalised but also shaping the very structure and content of narratives through algorithmic design and data-driven insights. While technology accelerates the spread of myths, making them more pervasive and accessible, it also introduces risks of commodification and manipulation (Gephart and Ganzin, 2018). Research could examine how technological advancements influence the lifecycle of myths, balancing authenticity with their expanded reach in the digital age.
5. Conclusion
In this article, we examine the lifecycle of myths within organisations, emphasising their emergence, transformation and broader cultural significance. Through our recursive process model, we reveal how localised myths, rooted in specific organisational contexts, evolve into rational myths embedded within institutional frameworks. This framework integrates insights from storytelling and institutional theories, offering a nuanced understanding of how myths are created, sustained and shaped by organisational and societal dynamics.
This work is particularly timely as organisations increasingly operate in a global and technological landscape marked by rapid change and diverse societal expectations. In this context, organisations face the challenge of maintaining authenticity while navigating institutional pressures for legitimacy. In the Australian context, the article resonates strongly due to the nation’s unique cultural and institutional challenges. Australia is characterised by its multicultural society, its ongoing journey towards reconciliation with Indigenous communities, and its significant role in global industries like mining, technology and environmental conservation. Understanding the lifecycle of myths offers valuable tools for Australian organisations to balance localised narratives with broader institutional and cultural imperatives. This framework also helps illuminate how uniquely Australian practices and values can transition into universally resonant myths, contributing to both national identity and global influence.
We argue that understanding the lifecycle of myths offers a critical perspective on navigating tensions between the human need for meaning and the forces driving institutional rationality. Myths operate at the intersection of collective imagination and institutional structures, reflecting how organisations negotiate the boundary between cultural values and systemic order. Our model provides a foundation for future research to explore how myths adapt, decay or renew in response to shifting cultural and organisational landscapes. We hope to encourage deeper engagement with the ways myths mediate between human aspirations and institutional realities, shaping the evolving narratives that underpin organisational life.
Footnotes
ORCID iD
