Changing Loosely Coupled Systems

Abstract

In addition to comparing and contrasting loosely coupled systems with tightly coupled systems the purpose of this article is to explore the complexities of attempting to change loosely coupled systems. The change process is often in the direction of tightening a loosely coupled system but not always. Thus the intent is more exploratory than necessarily directional. Social network analysis is a popular and useful tool for understanding a loosely coupled system and serves the consulting process both diagnostically and as an intervention. A network is a common example of a loosely coupled system. There are two primary forms of network-external and internal. External networks are typically stand-alone organizations such as the Organization Development Network and internal networks are best understood as the informal organization within a large and probably highly bureaucratic system. Regarding change the objectives are different depending on which kind of network is being addressed. Other interventions that are appropriate for consulting with a loosely coupled system include large group, for example, search conference and the parallel organization. Using Weick's processes as a guide for changing a loosely coupled system suggestions for how to conduct such consultation are provided. Conclusions include a brief exploration on power and an admonition to redress the imbalance between what we know about changing tightly coupled systems and what we do not know about changing loosely coupled systems.

Loose and tight coupling in educational organizations – an integrative literature review

“…' shared beliefs, norms and institutionalized expectations (Meyer, 2002b). Tight coupling, on the contrary, refers to standardization, strong interdependence and centralized authority in organizations (Burke, 2014;Weick, 1976). Coupling terms have, however, been criticized for their ambiguity (e.g.…”

Developing Specialist Leaders of Education: a research engagement approach

“…This includes new understandings of reputation and accountability in the policy and organisational context they are working in and the ability to analyse various groups of schools as organisations (Woods and Simkins, 2014). It also means understanding types of change that are possible in loosely and tightly coupled systems created by new structural arrangements (Burke, 2014) and exerting influence in individual schools (Author 2) as well as school networks, (Hadfield and Jopling, 2012) so that diagnoses of client situations are better judged and consultancy action is more effective. In the cause of understanding this wider F o r P e e r R e v i e w O n l y context, this study both updates the business literature of organisation and adds education literature on structural reform absent from initial SLE training.…”

“…System leader consultants are committed to democratic values (Burnes and Cooke, 2012). They base their diagnoses of client situations on policy appropriate organisational analysis (Woods and Simkins, 2014), and understand networked relationships between agency and structure in the work they do (Hadfield andChapman, 2009,,Hadfield andJopling, 2012 processes (Burke, 2014), and takes a critical stance in public policy debate around consultancy and knowledge production (Gunter et. al., 2015).…”

Developing system leaders

“…It acknowledges the complexity of contracting relationships (Hazle Bussey et al, 2014) and of change processes. (Burke, 2014) and takes a critical stance in public policy debate around consultancy and knowledge production. (Gunter et al, 2015).…”