Coupling (organizational theory)
Coupling referred to in the organizational theory the property of systems to take on other systems influence. In organizational theory, the term was introduced by Karl E. Weick on the basis of the work of James G. March and others. Weick is a representative of the systems- theoretical explanatory model of organizations and does not regard organizations as monolithic blocks whose parts are all the same; rather, the cohesion between the fragmented parts of the organization must be explained by certain interactions . For Weick, these interactions differ in their respective variability and in their dimensions .
A "loose coupling" ( loose coupling ) is after prior Weick, "... if two separate systems either only a few variables have in common or their common variables are weak in comparison with other variables affecting the system. Two systems with few or weak common variables are said to be loosely coupled. "
Weick's idea of loose and fixed coupling must not be confused with the structural coupling in Niklas Luhmann's theory of social systems . There systems can expressly only process internal, structure-determined irritations as information, and it is impossible that a system does not have any causal influence on its environment.
According to Weick, influences occur suddenly as opposed to uniformly , now and then as opposed to constant , negligible as opposed to essential , indirect as opposed to direct and at some point as opposed to immediately . As a result, disturbances occurring in loosely coupled systems tend to be limited.
In strongly coupled systems, on the other hand, disturbances can have far-reaching effects that are then perceived more quickly. If, for example, the sales figures decline in a retail business , this is more likely to be noticed in sales planning than in production. The HR department, on the other hand, will only notice this when the workforce has to be changed.
Weick describes the type of coupling as the result of the interaction between the environment and the subsystem. The more regulated and predictable this environment is, the stronger the coupling between such subsystems will be. The more unpredictable the environment is and the wider the reaction scope of the systems, the more loosely they are linked to one another. Conversely, strongly coupled systems (as opposed to loosely coupled) will only pass on changes very poorly. The cause lies in the low variability of the compounds, which quickly leads to stereotypical results (see Ashby's law ).
Qualification of couplings
Weick names four main factors that influence the strength of couplings.
- Regulations
Regulations (rules, instructions) etc. differ in importance , number, possibilities for deviation and clarity. Couplings get stronger when these four factors increase, for example when the rule is very important.
- Acceptance of regulations
The more agreement there is on the content of regulations, violations of regulations and the consequences of violations, the stronger the coupling will be. Here cultural factors play a role on the level of the organization ( organizational culture ), but also on the level of society .
- Feedback
The faster the consequences of an action are conveyed back, the stronger the coupling.
- attention
The more attention is paid to a coupling, the stronger it becomes. If the attention changes, for example because more important things have to be taken into account, the variability will increase again and the coupling will become weaker.
These four aspects are of course not to be understood as a final summary. Even when other factors are added, it quickly becomes clear that no organization is completely loosely or strongly coupled. Most organizations can be characterized as mixtures of loose and strong couplings. Accordingly, one can certainly speak of “ order ” in organizations, but this is considerably less consistent or all-encompassing than conventional bureaucracy models , for example the cultural typology according to Deal and Kennedy or the forms of bureaucracy used by the Aston Group . In addition, the couplings in a system vary over time and the coupling is less a precise description of a system state than a way of thinking about the relationships within an organization or the organization itself.
Effects and examples
Weak coupling increases the ambiguity (ambiguity) in systems. Preview and planning ( prévoir ), organization ( organizer ), management ( commander ); Coordination ( coordonner ) and control ( contrôler ) - the "management functions" according to Henri Fayol - are made more difficult. On the other hand, it enables solutions to be found. For these reasons, organizations shy away from ambiguity. It follows from this that delegation , self-determination and differentiation (in teams) are not attractive alternative strategies, since all these methods promote the variability of couplings and thus ambiguity. However, it would be wrong to believe that ambiguity can be eliminated. Systems are inconceivable without ambiguity. This makes ambiguity a cause of many things that happen in organizations.
An example of such effects is called “ superstitious learning”. According to Hedberg, complicated interactions between organizations and their environment exceed human cognitive abilities and lead to the wrong conclusions being drawn. If these conclusions are preserved in the structures, the organizational memory , then organizational learning takes place, but it is "superstitious" because it depicts a cause-effect relationship that does not exist in reality . Such processes delay “real” learning, because now (incorrectly) stored information must first be corrected through incremental adjustments.
swell
- ^ A b Derek S. Pugh , David J. Hickson : Writers on Organizations. 5th edition. Penguin Books, London 1996, ISBN 0-14-025023-9 , pp. 124-129.
- ↑ Weick himself cites the neurologist Robert B. Glassman as the source of the idea : Persistence and loose coupling in living systems. In: Behavioral Science. 18: 83-98 (1973). This in turn relies on W. Ross Ashby's theoretical preliminary work.
- ^ A b c d e Karl E. Weick: Sources of order in Underorganized Systems: Themes in Recend Organizational Theory. In: Karl E. Weick (Ed.): Making Sense of the Organization. University of Michigan / Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA 2001, ISBN 0-631-22317-7 , pp. 32-57.
- ^ Karl E. Weick: The process of organizing. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main 1985, ISBN 3-518-06039-2 , p. 163.
- ^ Teresa L. Thompson: Encyclopedia of Health Communication. Sage Reference, 2014, ISBN 978-1-4522-5875-1 , p. 781.
- ^ Karl E. Weick: The process of organizing. (= Suhrkamp Taschenbücher Wissenschaft 1194). 2007, ISBN 978-3-518-28794-1 .
- ^ Terrence E. Deal, Allan A. Kennedy: Corporate Cultures. Perseus, 2000.
- ^ Henri Fayol: General and Industrial Management. Pitman, London 1949.
- ^ B. Hedberg: How organizations learn and unlearn. In: PC Nystrom, William H. Starbuck (Ed.): Handbook of organizational design. Vol 1, Oxford University Press, New York 1981, ISBN 0-19-827241-3 .