Behind Smoke and Mirrors: A Political Approach to Decoupling

Abstract

In this paper, we examine neglected dimensions of decoupling - i.e., its power and political aspects. We draw on an empirical study of the reaction of two hospital subunits and an external agency (the Regional Health Agency) to a policy implementation, to contribute to the recent renewed interest in decoupling. We first reconsider the distinction between internal and external actors by investigating how they interact in their responses to the new policy implementation. While observing different forms of decoupling, we show how power and politics allow us to understand how these forms are articulated and related. Furthermore, we highlight that contexts characterized by institutional complexity are particularly propitious for decoupling. Finally, we outline that how actors use logics to justify their claims might differ significantly from how they enact those logics. More broadly, this paper contributes by bringing back power and politics into the analysis of institutional processes.

Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation

“…This includes forms of organisational decoupling such that RI does not substantively impinge on the organisation (Meyer and Rowan, 1977;Oliver, 1991;Boxenbaum and Jonsson, 2008;Kraatz and Block, 2008;Bromley and Powell, 2017), which is largely left to perform according to existing organisational logics. Bromley and Powell (2017) and Kern et al (2018) note that contexts of institutional complexity (such as universities) are particularly propitious for decoupling. Under such circumstances RI may become at most an occasional supplement (see Goos and Lindner (2015) for a further example of RI compartalisation in this respect).…”

“…This could open up the potential to provide further insights concerning the ongoing translation of RI as a policy relevant discourse. This might include empirical exploration of organisational decoupling (Bromley andPowell, 2017), recoupling (Hallett, 2010) and how this might be influenced by relationships of mutual dependency, accountability and power, such as may exist between research funders, universities and disciplines within these (Kern et al, 2018). It also offers potential to provide insights for case studies of institutionalisation of other policy-relevant cognates (Forsberg, 2014) of which the EC discourse of RRI (Novitzky et al, 2020) is just one.…”

“…Such legitimacy challenges can relate to perceived or actual failure in the performance or utility of an existing institution or practice, or their purposes and the values that underpin them (Oliver, 1992). During such moments, incumbent logics, institutions or practices can come under scrutiny, depending on the nature of the challenge and the dynamics between the organisation and its internal and external stakeholders (Deephouse et al, 2017;Deephouse and Suchman, 2008;Kern et al, 2018). This can create internal dissonance and even conflict, serving to 'fragment shared interpretations of appropriate organizational behaviour' (Oliver, 1992, p. 568).…”

Health Care Research and Organization Theory

“…While earlier work showed how decoupling can be a mechanism for institutional stability, articles in our dataset highlight how decoupling can facilitate change. Kern, Laguecir, and Leca (2017) studied differences in the responses of two hospital departments to a new government policy requiring the use of a new patient case-mix system. The results showed that the surgery department "implemented" the policy only rhetorically: surgeons ignored and routinely violated the related rules, and clinical practices remained unchanged.…”

Why Books?

“…The term ‘politics’ or ‘political’ frequently appears in the titles of articles published this journal (see e.g. Grey, 2010; Kern, Laguecir, & Leca, 2017), but it can evoke different meanings for different readers. To clarify how Orwell’s criterion on political purpose can be applied in the process of reviewing a book, and to render the word ‘political’ more tangible, we turn to the work of Carl Rogers.…”