Endorsement or Detachment? Examining Individual Responses to Institutional Decoupling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars within institutional theory have consistently directed their focus toward the institutional and organizational determinants that explain why certain organizations engage in institutional decoupling. While these studies offer valuable insights, there remains a significant gap in understanding how individual employees respond to institutional decoupling. This study addresses this theoretical gap by examining South Korean organizations ostensibly adopting the 40-hour work policy while discreetly maintaining overtime work to sustain productivity. Through a multi-level analysis involving 6,576 individual employees across 209 organizations, our findings reveal a negative relationship between institutional decoupling, organizational identification, and proactive performance, attributed to the cognitive dissonance arising from the incongruence between external expressions and internal values. We argue that cognitive dissonance can be mitigated through normative attitudes and behaviors associated with social identities, along with individual motivations for self-enhancement. As organizations gain greater appeal in the labor market, employees rationalize institutional decoupling as a means to enhance their identity and status. Additionally, when organizations make efforts to achieve a desirable future image, they interpret institutional decoupling as a transitional phase aimed at reinforcing their social identity. These findings highlight the role of social identity in shaping how individual employees address cognitive dissonance arising from institutional decoupling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".