CampusDownWiki
Total citations 14,841한국어KO 2,694EnglishEN 9,846日本語JA 768中文ZH 1,533
CampusDown ↗
English

Decoupling (Institutional Theory)

👥 Sociology By CampusDown Wiki Editorial Team Last updated
Decoupling, a concept in neo-institutional organisational sociology, describes organisations that formally adopt structures and rules seen as legitimate while running everyday activities differently, so formal structure and actual practice are separated. It differs from economic growth–emissions decoupling.
Contents
  1. 1. Myth and ceremony
  2. 2. Isomorphism and loose coupling
  3. 3. Recoupling and types
  4. 4. FAQ
  5. 5. References

Myth and ceremony

Meyer and Rowan (1977) argued formal structures reflect rationalised institutional myths that bring legitimacy, so organisations keep them ceremonially while decoupling practice, a core claim of neo-institutionalism.

Isomorphism and loose coupling

Weick (1976) described loosely coupled systems, a condition for decoupling. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) explained institutional isomorphism; Boxenbaum and Jonsson (2008) reviewed both strands.

Recoupling and types

Tilcsik (2010) and Hallett (2010) showed recoupling, and Bromley and Powell (2012) distinguished policy–practice from means–ends decoupling, relevant to bureaucracy and street-level bureaucrats.

FAQ

What is decoupling in simple terms?
An organisation shows it adopted proper rules but works differently in practice.
Is decoupling bad?
Not always; it can help manage conflicting demands but may leave goals unmet.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

  1. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. The founding paper.
  2. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. Loose coupling.
  3. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. Institutional isomorphism.
  4. Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2008). Isomorphism, diffusion and decoupling. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 78–98). SAGE. Handbook review.
  5. Tilcsik, A. (2010). From ritual to reality: Demography, ideology, and decoupling in a post-communist government agency. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1474–1498. Decoupling eroded by demography.
  6. Hallett, T. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75(1), 52–74. Recoupling in a school.
  7. Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483–530. Policy–practice vs means–ends.

Reports and materials that use this theory (Korean)

There are no materials dedicated to this theory yet, but you can search related reports in the CampusDown library (Korean).

Find more reports · Search '탈동조화' on CampusDown →

You may also like

Latest ArticlesView all ›

New guides for college study and assignments (Korean)

This article was last updated on October 27, 2026. It is based on widely recognized original works and textbooks; when citing it in a paper, please check the original sources listed in the references.