Introduction
The management of organizational transformation and improvement is tied to organizational relationships, where the contrast between loose and tight systems may be seen. It is suggested that tightly connected organizations are simpler to control and alter from above than loosely connected ones. Tight interconnection operates in educational systems through formalization as well as reliance on rules and procedures to regulate teacher and student conduct (Hautala et al., 2017). Changes in higher education system structure have a limited effect on classroom activities in loosely coupled groups, and resistance to change is typically a trait of these types of organizations.
Case Study Summary
The case of Green Mountain State deals with the higher education system and the developments within it that led to the conflict. The Green Mountain State system can be described as a comprehensive, tightly coupled higher education system. Its leader, Dr. Susan Castleton, had a vision of a robust and bureaucratic system with no room for disintegration. This was essentially challenged by Chancellor Hunt, a prominent board member, who wanted to develop the system differently and attempted to initiate changes. The result of this became the conflict between Castleton and Hunt, who eventually resigned and did not work in the higher education system anymore. The essence of the conflict is the debate between tightly and loosely coupled educational systems, their benefits and limitations, as well as the implications on leadership decisions and their impact on educational development. My argument here is that there is a need for balance and synthesis between approaches to ensure the continuous development of the system. It is thus necessary to critically evaluate both approaches, their possibilities, and pitfalls, as well as their implications for leadership practices within the higher education system.
Tightly Coupled Education System
The case deals with the system of Green Mountain State, which was essentially designed and developed as a tightly coupled system of higher education institutions. Three overarching themes can be found in the context of a tightly coupled education system. First, the tight structure emphasizes the importance of rules, guidelines, oversight, and certification in such a system (Hallett & Hawbaker, 2021). Second, a strong connection ties members to the organization’s objectives. Thirdly, the tightly coupled system can theoretically help to increase organizational effectiveness (Hakansson & Adolfsson, 2022). Essentially, strong bureaucratic control mechanisms in such educational institutions system bind teachers and leaders to the organization’s goals and values as well as to its vision and philosophy. However, members can actively enforce institutional mandates and align them with their thoughts about the goals and purposes of the organization, even among tightly coupled systems. This became the case with Chancellor Hunt, who attempted to challenge the existing bureaucratic system.
It is considered that effective, tightly associated educational institutions have rigorous evaluations of the efficacy of the curriculum, and accountability is one of these characteristics. Additionally, due to the strong relationships among such educational institutions, strategic planning enables ongoing adjustment for profitability and efficiency (Hakansson & Adolfsson, 2022). However, at the same time, the major limitation of tightly coupled systems is their centralization. The case showed that attempts of Hunt were essentially futile due to the impossibility of challenging the whole system. The major factor also became the fact that most of the Board Members were in favor of Castleton’s vision, which leaves no space for dissident thinking.
Loosely Coupled Education System
The light relationship between supervision and learning is a typical illustration of a loose structure in this connection when examining performance and outcomes in educational institutions. The lack of connections between institutions’ core activities and their managerial activities, as well as a somewhat weak connection between the institutional environment and its learning activities, are particular characteristics of loosely connected educational systems (Spain & Woulfin, 2019). Indirect supervision, which is loosely related to instruction, is likely to have a greater positive impact on learning than more authoritative supervision. Such structure was essentially avoided by Castleton, who preferred to subordinate all processes under bureaucratic, systemic control.
One crucial aspect of loosely connected educational organizations is the prevalence of individual and organizational autonomy. Although loose coupling encourages teachers’ and management’s autonomy, it can also be a major limitation to educational progress (Hallett & Hawbaker, 2021). Job happiness and work commitment are closely tied to this autonomy. At the same time, it can be considered that loose structure impacts how inventive people and organizations are (Lueg & Graf, 2022). Additionally, informal communication fosters the independence of both organizational units and individual teachers. In educational institutions, such approaches make a distinct distinction between supervision and instruction (Hautala et al., 2017). Such systems can provide a prosperous space for development but are highly dependent on responsibility and proactive positions of leadership.
Leadership Issues
Coherence of communications and structure places demands on leadership, which in turn influences leadership in higher education systems. Additionally, organizational ties are the focus of change projects, and the alignment of these relationships makes change implementation difficult, particularly in organizations with looser coupling. The importance of cultural ties can be emphasized through increased participation and collaboration, free communication can be improved through increased discretion and autonomy, a sense of community can be reinforced, and order and discipline can be enforced (Spain & Woulfin, 2019). These are effective leadership strategies to increase job satisfaction in the educational system. The lack of collaboration and free communication became evident in the case of Green Mountain State.
Close communication is viewed in this context as a sign of bureaucratic control in educational organizations. It has been demonstrated that the utilization of bureaucratic ties undermines managers’ sense of belonging and career happiness (Lueg & Graf, 2022). Thus, it is important to develop an organizational system that balances the flexible and rigid elements of educational organizations. For instance, the concepts of organizational learning and network organization illustrate the need to strike a balance between these complex organizations’ conservative and innovative elements as well as their rational and irrational forces.
Conclusion
The rigid and flexible facets of educational organizations, such as organizational learning, network organization, and agency-oriented interaction, must be understood and balanced. Educational institutions need to balance stability and change, individual autonomy and group collaboration, strategic leadership and bottom-up entrepreneurship, leadership and facilitation, and organizational learning and networking to prosper in a knowledge society. The case discussed presented a vivid example of the limitations of the tightly coupled education system, which led to the conflict within and stalled its potential development. At the same, it was evident that a loose structure is also not a solution due to the complicated implementation of coherent vision and strategy.
Effective and great systems of educational organizations are thought to balance loose and tough connections through simultaneous interaction between two approaches. In tightly coupled organizations, the strength of the system’s internal culture can promote a culture of risk aversion. At the same time, loose coupling emphasizes the symbolic cultural aspects of organizations while offering little direction on how to harmonize culture with structure. The key finding regarding loose and close communication in educational institutions is that close communication is primarily a useful trait from a management perspective. In contrast, the loose structure is primarily a positive trait in terms of personality. To fully utilize both their flexible and rigid configurations, educational institutions must establish and highlight leadership techniques that encourage concurrent engagement, efficiency and cooperation, diligence, and development.
References
Hakansson, J., & Adolfsson, C. H. (2022). Local education authority’s quality management within a coupled school system: Strategies, actions, and tensions. Journal of Educational Change, 23(3), 291-314. Web.
Hallett, T., & Hawbaker, A. (2021). The case for inhabited institutionalism in organizational research: interaction, coupling, and change reconsidered. Theory and Society, 50(1), 1–32. Web.
Hautala, T., Helander, J., & Korhonen, V. (2017). Loose and tight coupling in educational organizations: An integrative literature review. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(2), pp. 236-258. Web.
Lueg, K., & Graf, A. (2022). The organization of higher education: An overview of sociological research into universities as organizations. Research Handbook on the Sociology of Organizations, 21(1) 13-29. Web.
Spain, A. K., & Woulfin, S. L. (2019). Past, present, and future of coupling as a leadership concept. In Educational Leadership, Organizational Learning, and the Ideas of Karl Weick (pp. 162–185). Routledge.