Correo Electrónico
DNINFOA - SIA
Bibliotecas
Convocatorias
Identidad U.N.
Publicado
Organizational couplings: a literature review
Acoplamientos organizacionales: una revisión de la literatura
Acoplamentos organizacionais: uma revisão da literaturae
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v31n79.91898Palabras clave:
Coupling, loosely coupled systems, organization, organization studies, review (en)acoplamiento, sistemas débilmente acoplados, estudios organizacionales, Organización, revisión (es)
acoplamento, sistemas fracamente acoplados, organização, estudos organizacionais, revisão (pt)
Descargas
The loosely coupled systems (LCS) perspective emerged as a new way to understand the organizational structure from the field of Organization Studies. The purpose of this article is to present the main features of previous research studies that have addressed the perspective of loosely coupled systems. This article is based on a systematic literature review of 76 papers published during a 36-year period (1983-2019). The findings indicate that the main concepts studied around this perspective have been loose coupling, tight coupling, decoupling, degree of coupling, and coupling mechanisms, which are analyzed considering the dialectical relationship between distinctiveness and responsiveness. Likewise, the study of organizational couplings has been extensively developed through qualitative methodology with case studies, interviews and documentary reviews. In particular, there are two theoretical frameworks broadly used along with this perspective, the sociological new institutionalism and the theory of normal accidents, which give rise to future research on topics such as decoupling and the normality of accidents, among others. This article contributes to the discussion of organizational ties by highlighting the contemporary relevance of the LCS perspective, its usefulness for understanding current and future organizational issues in the field of Organization Studies, and encouraging greater adoption of LCS analysis in Latin America. Additionally, this paper provides conceptual clarity on the main categories of organizational couplings and its operationalization.
La perspectiva de los sistemas débilmente acoplados (LCS, en inglés) surgió como una nueva forma de comprender la estructura de las organizaciones desde la óptica de los estudios organizacionales. Por ello, este artículo busca describir las principales características de dicha perspectiva a partir de una revisión sistemática de 76 artículos publicados durante un período de 36 años (1983-2019). Los hallazgos indican que los principales conceptos estudiados en torno a los sistemas débilmente acoplados han sido el acoplamiento débil, el acoplamiento fuerte, el desacoplamiento, el grado de acoplamiento y los mecanismos de acoplamiento, los cuales han sido analizados con base en la relación dialéctica entre singularidad y capacidad de respuesta. Así mismo, se evidencia que el estudio de los acoplamientos organizacionales se ha desarrollado a través de metodologías cualitativas y el uso de estudios de casos, entrevistas y revisiones documentales. En particular, existen dos marcos teóricos ampliamente utilizados junto con este enfoque (el nuevo institucionalismo sociológico y la teoría de los accidentes normales), dando lugar a investigaciones futuras en temas como el desacoplamiento y la normalidad en la ocurrencia de accidentes, entre otros. Este artículo contribuye a la discusión alrededor de los vínculos organizacionales en tanto reconoce la importancia de los sistemas débilmente acoplados y su utilidad para la comprensión de los problemas actuales y futuros de las organizaciones desde el campo de los estudios organizacionales, promoviendo una mayor adopción de los fundamentos de esta corriente en Latinoamérica y precisando las categorías esenciales de los acoplamientos organizacionales y su funcionamiento.
A perspectiva de sistemas fracamente acoplados (LCS, na sigla em inglês) surgiu como uma nova forma de entender a estrutura organizacional a partir do campo dos Estudos Organizacionais. O objetivo deste artigo é apresentar as principais características de pesquisas anteriores que abordaram a perspectiva de sistemas fracamente acoplados. Este artigo baseia-se em uma revisão sistemática da literatura de 76 artigos publicados durante um período de 36 anos (1983-2019). As descobertas indicam que os principais conceitos estudados em torno dessa perspectiva têm sido “acoplamento fraco”, “acoplamento forte”, “desacoplamento”, “grau de acoplamento” e “mecanismos de acoplamento”, que são analisados considerando a relação dialética entre distinção e responsividade. Da mesma forma, o estudo dos acoplamentos organizacionais tem sido amplamente desenvolvido por meio de metodologia qualitativa com estudos de caso, entrevistas e revisão documental. Em particular, há dois marcos teóricos mais utilizados juntamente com essa perspectiva, o novo institucionalismo sociológico e a teoria dos acidentes normais, que dão origem a futuras pesquisas sobre temas como o desacoplamento e a normalidade dos acidentes, entre outros. Este artigo contribui para a discussão dos laços organizacionais ao destacar a relevância contemporânea da perspectiva do lcs, sua utilidade para a compreensão das questões organizacionais atuais e futuras no campo dos Estudos Organizacionais e incentivar uma maior adoção da análise do LCS na América Latina. Além disso, este artigo fornece clareza conceitual sobre as principais categorias de acoplamentos organizacionais e sua operacionalização.
Referencias
Aagaard, K. (2015). How incentives trickle down: Local use of a national bibliometric indicator system. Science and Public Policy, 42(5), 725-737. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu087
Acharya, V. V., Gottschalg, O. F., Hahn, M., & Kehoe, C. (2013). Corpo¬rate governance and value creation: Evidence from private eq¬uity. The Review of Financial Studies, 26(2), 368-402. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhs117
Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., & Byrne, J. (2012). Antecedents and contingent effects of organizational adaptive capability on firm product in¬novativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(S1), 171-189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15405885.2012.00949.x
Alarid, L. F., Sims, B. A., & Ruiz, J. (2011). Juvenile probation and po¬lice partnerships as loosely coupled systems: A qualitative analysis. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9(1), 79-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204010374298
Alnuaimi, T., & George, G. (2016). Appropriability and the retrieval of knowledge after spillovers. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1263-1279. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2383
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration ten¬sions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a method¬ological framework. International Journal of Social Research Meth¬odology, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Armstrong, D. J., Riemenschneider, C. K., & Giddens, L. G. (2018). The advancement and persistence of women in the information tech¬nology profession: An extension of Ahuja’s gendered theory of it career stages. Information Systems Journal, 28(6), 1082-1124. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12185
Babb, S., & Chorev, N. (2016). International organizations: Loose and tight coupling in the development regime. Studies in Comparative International Development, 51, 81-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-016-9217-7
Bachmann, A. S. (2006). Melting pot or tossed salad? Implications for designing effective multicultural workgroups. Management In¬ternational Review, 46, 721-748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-006-0124-4
Bahemia, H., Sillince, J., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2018). The timing of open¬ness in a radical innovation project, a temporal and loose coupling perspective. Research Policy, 47(10), 2066-2076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.015
Beekun, R. I., & Ginn, G. O. (1993). Business strategy and interorganiza¬tional linkages within the acute care hospital industry: An expan¬sion of the Miles and Snow typology. Human Relations, 46(11), 1291-1318. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304601102
Beekun, R. I., & Glick, W. H. (2001). Organization structure from a loose coupling perspective: A multidimensional approach. Decision Sci¬ences, 32(2), 227-250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00959.x
Berente, N., & Yoo, Y. (2012). Institutional contradictions and loose coupling: Postimplementation of nasa’s enterprise information system. Information Systems Research, 23(2), 376-396. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1110.0373
Bierly, P. E., Gallagher, S., & Spender, J.-C. (2008). Innovation and learning in high-reliability organizations: A case study of United States and Russian nuclear attack submarines, 1970-2000. IEEE Transac¬tions on Engineering Management, 55(3), 393-408. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2008.922643
Bierly, P. E., & Spender, J.-C. (1995). Culture and high reli¬ability organizations: The case of the nuclear subma¬rine. Journal of Management, 21(4), 639-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(95)90003-9
Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2017). Isomorphism, diffusion and de-coupling: Concept evolution and theoretical challenges. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T.B. Lawrence and R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (2 ed.), (pp. 79-104). London: Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446280669.n4
Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Man¬agement Annals, 6(1), 483-530. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.684462
Browning, L. D., & Hawes, L. C. (1991). Style, process, surface, context: Consulting as postmodern art. Journal of Ap¬plied Communication Research, 19(1-2), 32-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889109365291
Brusoni, S., & Prencipe, A. (2001). Managing knowledge in loosely cou¬pled networks: Exploring the links between product and knowledge dynamics. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 1019- 1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00270
Burke, W. W. (2014). Changing loosely coupled systems. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(4), 423-444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314549923
Burns, L. R., Walston, S. L., Alexander, J. A., Zuckerman, H. S., Andersen, R. M., Torrens, P. R., & Hilberman, D. (2001). Just how integrated are integrated delivery systems? Results from a national survey. Health Care Management Review, 26(1), 20-39. http://doi.org/10.1097/00004010-200101000-00003
Cabigiosu, A., & Camuffo, A. (2012). Beyond the “mirroring” hypoth¬esis: Product modularity and interorganizational relations in the air conditioning industry. Organization Science, 23(3), 686-703. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0655
Cavnor, C. D. (2018). Fighting the fire in our own house: How poor de¬cisions are smoldering within the U.S. fire service (Master Thesis). Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, USA. https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/58281
Chen, Y.-D., Brown, S. A., Hu, P. J.-H., King, C.-C., & Chen, H. (2011). Man-aging emerging infectious diseases with information systems: Re-conceptualizing outbreak management through the lens of loose coupling. Information Systems Research, 22(3), 447-468. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1110.0376
Christensen, L. T., Fırat, A. F., & Torp, S. (2008). The organisation of integrated communications: Toward flexible integration. European Journal of Marketing, 42(3-4), 423-452. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560810853002
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392088
Collier, P. M. (2001). The power of accounting: A field study of local financial management in a police force. Management Accounting Research, 12(4), 465-486. https://doi.org/10.1006/mare.2001.0157
Corbett, J. M. (1987). A psychological study of advanced man¬ufacturing technology: The concept of coupling. Behav¬iour & Information Technology, 6(4), 441-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449298708901855
Covaleski, M. A., & Dirsmith, M. W. (1983). Budgeting as a means for control and loose coupling. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(4), 323-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(83)90047-8
Danneels, E. (2003). Tight-loose coupling with customers: The enact¬ment of customer orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(6), 559-576. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.319
de-Vries, H. J., & Verhagen, W. P. (2016). Impact of changes in regula¬tory performance standards on innovation: A case of energy per¬formance standards for newly-built houses. Technovation, 48-49, 56-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.01.008
Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659-669. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.21318923
DiBiasio, D. A., & Ecker, G. (1982). Academic program review in a loosely coupled system. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Re¬search Association. New York, NY, USA.
Dimmock, C., & Tan, C. Y. (2013). Educational leadership in Singapore. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 320-340. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311311492
Dirsmith, M. W., Fogarty, T. J., & Gupta, P. (2000). Institutional pres¬sures and symbolic displays in a GAO context. Organization Studies, 21(3), 515-537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840600213002
Doolin, B. (2001). Doctors as managers-new public management in a New Zealand hospital. Public Management Review, 3(2), 231-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616670010029601
Dorée, A. G., & Holmen, E. (2004). Achieving the unlikely: Innovating in the loosely coupled construction system. Construction Manage¬ment and Economics, 22(8), 827-838. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619042000190225
Drake, B. M., Pytlarz, I., & Patel, M. (2018). Let me paint you a pic¬ture: Utilizing visualizations to make data more accessible. In K. Webber (Ed). Building Capacity in Institutional Research and De¬cision Support in Higher Education (pp. 81-93). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-711621_6
Duangchan, C., & Matthews, A. K. (2020). The effects of nurse-led smoking cessation interventions for patients with cancer: A systematic review. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Re¬search, 24(1), 118-139. https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/PRIJNR/article/view/181109
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). The construction industry as a loosely coupled system: Implications for productivity and innovation. Construction Management & Economics, 20(7), 621-631. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190210163543
Egelhoff, W. G. (2010). How the parent headquarters adds value to an MNC. Management International Review, 50, 413-431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-010-0043-2
Elston, T. (2017). Conflict between explicit and tacit public service bar¬gains in U. K. executive agencies. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 30(1), 85-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12191
Etuk, L., Keen, M., & Wall, C. (2012). The factors associated with rural community success. Oregon State University 1-63. http://dev.agsci.oregonstate.edu/sites/agsci.oregonstate.edu/files/community_vitality_lit_review_-_6-15-12.pdf
Evergreen, S. D. (2019). Effective data visualization: The right chart for the right data. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Fennell, H. A. (1994). Organizational linkages: Expanding the existing metaphor. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(1), 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239410051826
Firestone, W. A. (1984). The study of loose coupling: Problems, progress, and prospects. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, la, USA.
Furrow, B. R. (2002). Medical mistakes: Tiptoeing toward safety. Journal of Health Law, 3(3), 181-217.
Gavetti, G., Levinthal, D., & Ocasio, W. (2007). Perspective—Neo-Carn¬egie: The Carnegie school’s past, present, and reconstructing for the future. Organization Science, 18(3), 523-536. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0277
Gentilin, M., Gonzales-Miranda, D., & Ocampo-Salazar, C. (2019). Es¬tudio de las organizaciones: un análisis comparativo del ámbito internacional y latinoamericano (2000-2014). In S. Clegg, H. C., T. B. Lawrence, W. R. Nord, D. Gonzales-Miranda, & G. Ramírez- Martínez (Eds.), Tratado de estudios organizacionales (Vol. II) (pp. 1187-1224). Medellín: UAM, REMINEO, REOC, Editorial Universidad EAFIT, SAGE.
Goddard, A., Assad, M., Issa, S., Malagila, J., & Mkasiwa, T. A. (2016). The two publics and institutional theory. A study of public sector accounting in Tanzania. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 40, 8-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.02.002
Goldspink, C. (2007). Rethinking educational reform: A loosely cou¬pled and complex systems perspective. Educational Manage¬ment Administration & Leadership, 35(1), 27-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143207068219
Gonzales-Miranda, D. R. (2014). Los estudios organizacionales. Un campo de conocimiento comprensivo para el estudio de las organizaciones. Innovar, 24(54), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v24n54.46431
Grosvold, J., Hoejmose, S. U., & Roehrich, J. K. (2014). Squaring the circle: Management, measurement and performance of sustainability in supply chains. Supply Chain Management, 19(3), 292- 305. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-12-2013-0440
Hannaway, J., & Woodroffe, N. (2003). Chapter 1: Policy instruments in education. Review of Research in Education, 27(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X027001001
Hautala, T., Helander, J., & Korhonen, V. (2018). Loose and tight coupling in educational organizations–an integrative literature review. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(2), 236-258. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2017-0027
Hawkins, M., & James, C. (2018). Developing a perspective on schools as complex, evolving, loosely linking systems. Educational Manage¬ment Administration & Leadership, 46(5), 729-748. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217711192
Heimann, C. L. (2010). Acceptable risks: Politics, policy, and risky tech-nologies. Ann Harbor. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.14948
Heller, T. (1999). Loosely coupled systems for corporate entrepreneur¬ship: Imagining and managing the innovation project/host organization interface. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2), 25-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902400203
Hinings, C. R., Casebeer, A., Reay, T., Golden‐Biddle, K., Pablo, A., & Greenwood, R. (2003). Regionalizing healthcare in Al¬berta: Legislated change, uncertainty and loose coupling. British Journal of Management, 14, S15-S30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2003.00390.x
Hökkä, P., & Vähäsantanen, K. (2014). Agency-centred coupling—A better way to manage an educational organization? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 17(2), 131-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2013.783932
Horne, S. (1992). Organisation and change within educational systems: Some implications of a loose-coupling model. Educational Man¬agement Administration & Leadership, 20(2), 88-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/174114329202000204
Huang-Yin, C., Goh, E., & Law, R. (2019). Developing inter-organizational relationships with online travel agencies (OTAS) and the hotel in¬dustry. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(4), 428-442. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1568951
Ibarra-Colado, E. (2000). Teoría de la organización: mapa conceptual de un territorio en disputa. En E. de-la-Garza-Toledo (Coord.), Tratado latinoamericano de sociología del trabajo (pp. 245-284). Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Ingersoll, R. (1991). Loosely coupled organizations revisited. The Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association. Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Jaramillo-García, A. (2014). Tensiones en torno a las prácticas adminis-trativas en un proyecto de investigación financiado por Colciencias [Estudio de caso] (Master’s thesis). Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia. http://bibliotecadigital.univalle.edu.co/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10893/10045/CB-0516278.pdf?sequence=1
Karlsson, T., & Honig, B. (2009). Judging a business by its cover: An institutional perspective on new ventures and the business plan. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(1), 27-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2007.10.003
Kiesling, L. (2018). Toward a market epistemology of the platform economy. In S Horwits (Ed.), Austrian Economics: The Next Generation (pp. 45-70). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1529213420180000023006
Laine, M., Järvinen, J. T., Hyvönen, T., & Kantola, H. (2017). Ambiguity of financial environmental information: A case study of a Finnish energy company. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(3), 593-619. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-02-2015-1961
Lampel, J., & Bhalla, A. (2011). Living with offshoring: The impact of off-shoring on the evolution of organizational configurations. Journal of World Business, 46(3), 346-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.07.007
Lee, M.-D. P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social re-sponsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 53-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14682370.2007.00226.x
Lei, D., Hitt, M. A., & Goldhar, J. D. (1996). Advanced manufac¬turing technology: Organizational design and strategic flexibility. Organization Studies, 17(3), 501-523. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069601700307
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Abdinnour-Helm, S. (2004). The role of social and intellectual capital in achieving competi¬tive advantage through enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(4), 307- 330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2004.09.005
Lingard, L., McDougall, A., Levstik, M., Chandok, N., Spafford, M. M., & Schryer, C. (2014). Using loose coupling theory to understand interprofessional collaborative practice on a transplantation team. Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and Education, 3(3), 1-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.22230/jripe.2014v3n3a112
Liu, Y., Huang, Y., Luo, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2012). How does justice matter in achieving buyer–supplier relationship performance? Journal of Operations Management, 30(5), 355-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2012.03.003
Lom, S. E. (2016). Changing rules, changing practices: The direct and in¬direct effects of tight coupling in figure skating. Organization Science, 27(1), 36-52. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1018
London, M., & London, M. M. (1996). Tight coupling in high performing teams. Human Resource Management Review, 6(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(96)90002-9
Luo, Y. (2005). How important are shared perceptions of procedural jus¬tice in cooperative alliances? Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 695-709. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17843946
Luo, Y., Liu, Y., Zhang, L., & Huang, Y. (2011). A taxonomy of control mechanisms and effects on channel cooperation in China. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 307-326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0198-1
Luo, Y., Shenkar, O., & Gurnani, H. (2008). Control-cooperation inter¬faces in global strategic alliances: A situational typology and stra¬tegic responses. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 428- 453. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400365
MacCormack, A., Baldwin, C., & Rusnak, J. (2012). Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: A test of the “mirroring” hypothesis. Research Policy, 41(8), 1309-1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.011
Mahdad, M., De-Marco, C. E., Piccaluga, A., & Di-Minin, A. (2020). Har-nessing adaptive capacity to close the pandora’s box of open inno¬vation. Industry and Innovation, 27(3), 264-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2019.1633910
Marley, K. A., & Ward, P. T. (2013). Lean management as a countermea¬sure for “Normal” disruptions. Operations Management Research, 6, 44-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-013-0077-2
Marriott, N., Mellett, H., & Macniven, L. (2011). Loose coupling in asset management systems in the nhs. Management Accounting Research, 22(3), 198-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2011.05.001
McGinn, N. (2002). Why we should end reforms in education.. Third meeting: secondary education. Inter-American Development Bank. Washington, D.C., USA. https://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/2290/Why%20We%20Should%20End%20Reorms%20in%20Education.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Merz, R. L. (2006). A declaration of American business values: Ethics, eq¬uity and efficiency in the new millennium. New Jersey: Values of America Company.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
Misangyi, V. F. (2016). Institutional complexity and the meaning of loose coupling: Connecting institutional sayings and (not) doings. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 407-440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127016635481
Mitchell, D. E. (1980). The ideological factor in school politics. Ed¬ucation and Urban Society, 12(4), 436-451. https://doi.org/10.1177/001312458001200405
Moitra, D., & Ganesh, J. (2005). Web services and flexible business pro¬cesses: Towards the adaptive enterprise. Information & Manage¬ment, 42(7), 921-933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2004.10.003
Nätti, S., & Ojasalo, J. (2008). Loose coupling as an inhibitor of internal cus-tomer knowledge transfer: Findings from an empirical study in b-to-b professional services. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23(3), 213-223. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620810858472
Newton, J. D., Ewing, M. T., & Collier, P. M. (2014). Resolving contra¬dictions in institutional demands through loose coupling. In¬dustrial Marketing Management, 43(5), 747-753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.04.004
Nor-Aziah, A. K., & Scapens, R. W. (2007). Corporatisation and ac¬counting change: The role of accounting and accountants in a Ma¬laysian public utility. Management Accounting Research, 18(2), 209-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2007.03.003
Ocasio, W., & Joseph, J. (2008). Rise and fall-or transformation? The evolution of strategic planning at the General Electric Company, 1940-2006. Long Range Planning, 41(3), 248-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2008.02.010
Ogawa, R. T., & Paredes Scribner, S. (2002). Leadership: Spanning the technical and institutional dimensions of organizations. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 576-588. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210446054
Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1988). Toward a theory of the loosely coupled system. The University of Michigan working paper 586. Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A recon¬ceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203-223. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4308154
Palumbo, D. J., & Nachmias, D. (1983). The preconditions for successful evaluation: Is there an ideal paradigm? Policy Sciences, 16, 67-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138468
Pancs, R. (2017). Tight and loose coupling in organizations. The B. E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 17(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1515/bejte-2015-0081
Papadonikolaki, E. (2018). Loosely coupled systems of innovation: Aligning bim adoption with implementation in Dutch construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 34(6), 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000644
Parada, M. J., Gimeno, A., Samara, G., & Saris, W. (2020). The adop¬tion of governance mechanisms in family businesses: An institu¬tional lens. Journal of Family Business Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-07-2019-0054
Pérez-Martelo, C. B., Vinck, D., & Zarama, R. (2014). Mechanisms of self-organization and de(coupling) in scientific networks promoted by public policies: A case in the field of nanotechnologies in Co¬lombia. wosc 2014. Ibagué, Colombia, 15-17 October. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268035294_Mechanisms_of_Selforganization_and_decoupling_in_Scientific_Networks_Promoted_by_Public_Policies_A_case_in_the_field_of_nano¬technologies_in_Colombia
Perkowski, N. (2019). ‘There are voices in every direction’: Organizational decoupling in Frontex. Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(5), 1182-1199. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12897
Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Perrow, C. (2009). What’s needed is application, not reconcili¬ation: A response to Shrivastava, Sonpar and Pazzaglia (2009). Human Relations, 62(9), 1391-1393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709339120
Puusa, A., Kuittinen, M., & Kuusela, P. (2013). Paradoxical change and construction of identity in an educational organization. Educa¬tional Management Administration & Leadership, 41(2), 165-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143212468347
Ramírez-Cardona, C. A. (2018). Modernidad y sistemas flojamente acoplados. Una mirada desde el proceso de modernización de la Universidad de Manizales (Doctoral dissertation). Univer¬sidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad Iztapalapa, Mexico City. http://tesiuami.izt.uam.mx/uam/aspuam/presentatesis.php?recno=22542&docs=UAMI22542.pdf
Rasche, A. (2012). Global policies and local practice: Loose and tight couplings in multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quar¬terly, 22(4), 679-708. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201222444
Rau, C., Neyer, A. -K., & Möslein, K. M. (2012). Innovation practices and their boundary-crossing mechanisms: A review and proposals for the future. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(2), 181-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.647647
Rivkin, J. W. (2001). Reproducing knowledge: Replication without imi¬tation at moderate complexity. Organization Science, 12(3), 274- 293. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.3.274.10106
Roberts, J. (2018). Managing only with transparency: The strategic func¬tions of ignorance. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 55, 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.12.004
Rocha, C. M., & Chelladurai, P. (2013). Patterns of bureaucracy in in-tercollegiate athletic departments. Journal of Sport Management, 27(2), 114-129. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.27.2.114
Roe, E., Schulman, P., van-Eeten, M., & de Bruijne, M. (2005). High-reli¬ability bandwidth management in large technical systems: Find¬ings and implications of two case studies. Journal of Public Ad¬ministration Research and Theory, 15(2), 263-280. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui015
Rowan, B. (2002). Rationality and reality in organizational man¬agement: Using the coupling metaphor to understand educational (and other) organizations–a concluding comment. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 604-611. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210446072
Salvador, F. (2007). Toward a product system modularity construct: Lit-erature review and reconceptualization. IEEE Transactions on Engi¬neering Management, 54(2), 219-240. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2007.893996
Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowl¬edge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171107
Sapir, A., & Kameo, N. (2019). Rethinking loose coupling of rules and entrepreneurial practices among university scientists: A Japan-Is¬rael comparison. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44, 49-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9596-6
Shen, J., Gao, X., & Xia, J. (2017). School as a loosely coupled organiza¬tion? An empirical examination using national sass 2003-04 data. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(4), 657-681. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216628533
Silvast, A., & Kelman, I. (2013). Is the Normal Accidents perspective falsi-fiable? Disaster Prevention and Management, 22(1), 7-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653561311301934
Snelson-Powell, A., Grosvold, J., & Millington, A. (2016). Business school legitimacy and the challenge of sustainability: A fuzzy set analysis of institutional decoupling. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(4), 703-723. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0307
Spender, J. C., & Grinyer, P. H. (1995). Organizational renewal: Top man-agement’s role in a loosely coupled system. Human Relations, 48(8), 909-926. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679504800805
Spender, J. C., & Grevesen, W. (1999). The multinational enterprise as a loosely coupled system: The global integration–local responsiveness dilemma. Managerial Finance, 25(2), 63-84. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074359910765911
Staber, U., & Sydow, J. (2002). Organizational adaptive capacity: A struc-turation perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(4), 408- 424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492602238848
Swanson, T. A., Gregory, D. E., & Raspiller, E. E. (2012). Striking a balance: Managing blogs in loosely coupled systems. Community College Enterprise, 18(1), 62-85. ten-Cate, O., & Carrie-Chen, H. (2016). The parts, the sum and the whole—Evaluating students in teams. Medical teacher, 38(7), 639- 641. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1170794
Thornton, P. H., & Klyver, K. (2019). Who is more likely to walk the talk? The symbolic management of entrepreneurial intentions by gender and work status. Innovation: Organization & Management, 21(1), 102-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2018.1497448
Trein, P. (2017). A new way to compare horizontal connections of policy sectors: “Coupling” of actors, institutions and policies. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 19(5), 419- 434. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2016.1225342
Vuori, J. (2015). Enacting the common script: Management ideas at Finnish universities of applied sciences. Educational Manage¬ment Administration & Leadership, 43(4), 646-660. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214523016
Wagner, S. M., Mizgier, K. J., & Arnez, P. (2014). Disruptions in tightly coupled supply chain networks: The case of the us offshore oil in¬dustry. Production Planning & Control, 25(6), 494-508. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2012.705355
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled sys¬tems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875
Weick, K. E. (2010). Reflections on enacted sensemaking in the Bhopal disaster. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 537-550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00900.x
Yair, G. (1997). Method effects on theory testing: The case of organiza¬tional coupling in education. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(4), 290-311. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239710171901
Yuan, W., Bao, Y., & Verbeke, A. (2011). Integrating CSR initiatives in busi-ness: An organizing framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 75- 92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0710-z
Zyglidopoulos, S. C., Carroll, C. E., Georgiadis, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2009). The evolution of corporate social performance and the role of media visibility. SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1514385
Cómo citar
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Descargar cita
CrossRef Cited-by
1. Florian Grisel, Esmé Shirlow. (2025). The world in a court: how the International Court of Justice’s organizational practices promote stability in a contested field. Law & Society Review, 59(1), p.138. https://doi.org/10.1017/lsr.2024.53.
2. Jan Inge Jenssen. (2026). Kirkeledelse. Scandinavian Journal for Leadership & Theology, https://doi.org/10.53311/sjlt.pub2601.
3. Karen S. Baker, Florence Millerand. (2024). The Incremental Growth of Data Infrastructure in Ecology (1980–2020). Ecology and Evolution, 14(12) https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.70444.
4. Adriana Ramirez-Cardona, Gregorio Calderón-Hernández. (2024). Organizational coupling in higher education institutions: challenges for university governance. International Studies of Management & Organization, 54(2), p.105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2023.2301210.
5. Youliang Zhang, Ko Ho Mok, Xueying Gao, Qi Zhang. (2024). Understanding the Chinese−Foreign cooperation in running schools: from the perspective of loose coupling theory. Journal of Asian Public Policy, , p.1. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2024.2395021.
6. Gunrid Kjellmark, Eilif Hjelseth, Guillermina Andrea Peñaloza, Signe Riemer-Sørensen. (2026). Toward Construction 5.0: Bridging AI and People through Continuous Learning. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(1) https://doi.org/10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-16172.
7. Yuanqing He, Yongning Wen, Ruoyu Tao, Zhiyi Zhu, Wentao Li, Jiapeng Zhang, Songshan Yue, Qingyun Duan, Guonian Lü, Min Chen. (2025). Advancing river flood forecasting with a collaborative integrated modeling method. Journal of Environmental Management, 373, p.123677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123677.
8. Julia Bello-Bravo, Anne Namatsi Lutomia, John William Medendorp, Barry Robert Pittendrigh. (2025). The Right to Knowledge. , p.27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-03360-4_3.
9. Yael Grinshtain, Orit Avidov-Ungar, Haim Shaked, Idit Livneh, Daniel Nikritin. (2024). ‘Not fully coordinated’: the loosely coupled paradigm as a framework for understanding relationships of educators in teacher education programmes. Journal of Education for Teaching, 50(4), p.707. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2023.2299440.
Dimensions
PlumX
Visitas a la página del resumen del artículo
Descargas
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0.
Todos los artículos publicados por Innovar se encuentran disponibles globalmente con acceso abierto y licenciados bajo los términos de Creative Commons Atribución-No_Comercial-Sin_Derivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Una vez seleccionados los artículos para un número, y antes de iniciar la etapa de cuidado y producción editorial, los autores deben firmar una cesión de derechos patrimoniales de su obra. Innovar se ciñe a las normas colombianas en materia de derechos de autor.
El material de esta revista puede ser reproducido o citado con carácter académico, citando la fuente.
Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons:
