EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP IN

LOOSELY COUPLED

ORGANIZATIONS

Mimi L. Zemmelman, Ph.D.

Purpose of the study

Espoused beliefs of leaders in 4 courts and 4 hospitals:

What it takes to form and sustain an effective leadership coalition

What their organizations can do to support the leadership team’s success.

Considered through lenses of organizational theory and organizational systems theories

Why does this inquiry matter to court and hospital leaders?

1. The public wants fair and user-friendly access to justice and healthcare

2. The public wants trustworthy, cost effective, and transparent institutions

3. Social and economic climates are extremely dynamic

4. Few LCO leaders have training or experience in coalition leadership

5. Core professionals struggle most to collaborate across disciplines

6. Leadership coalition members enter and exit at different times

Definitions:

Tightly coupled organization

Loosely coupled organization

Multiple hierarchies

Core professionals

Leadership coalition

If there is responsiveness without distinctiveness, the system is tightly coupled.

If there is distinctiveness without responsiveness, the system is decoupled.

If there is both distinctiveness and responsiveness, the system is loosely coupled.

(Orton and Weick, 1990, p. 205)

Hierarchies are brilliant systems inventions, not only because they

give a system stability and resilience, but also because they reduce

the amount of information that any part of the system has to keep

track of.

In hierarchical systems relationships within each subsystem are

denser and stronger than relationships between subsystems.

Everything is still connected to everything else, but not equally

strongly.

(Meadows, 2008, p. 83)

Administrative, professional & support staff

CEO

Tightly coupled organization

Presiding Judge, Chief Medical Officer

Court Executive Officer, Chief Medical Officer

Administrative, professional & support staff

Leadership coalition

Loosely coupled organization

Loosely coupled organizations are densely networked & permeable

Success of leadership coalition is predicated on a partnership within the

“heterarchy of hierarchies” (Stephenson, 2009, p. 3)

Interdependent, semi-autonomous hierarchies (neither can deliver signature services without cooperation of the other)

Core professionals often identify more with profession than with host organization

Core professionals’ ability to perform job can only be assessed by similarly trained professionals

Strengths of loosely coupled organizations:

Adapt to a knowledge-based economy

Foster creativity and experimentation with change

Resilient in the face of rapid change

Support increasing specialization among the professions

Dampen the impact of failed initiatives launched in one part of the organization

Allow subordinate groups to maintain hierarchies headed by those with similar skills

(Banathy, 1996)

Weaknesses of loosely coupled organizations:

Difficult to navigate

The organization has reduced ability to exert influence or control over its subordinate units (especially core professionals)

Inherent tension between the core professionals’ drive to convene and deliver organizational resources one case, customer, or patient at a time and the administrator’s need to achieve economies of scale as a way to maximize limited resources

(Fusarelli, 2002)

Leaders’ perceived challenges:

The existence of strong ties and allegiances outside of the organization

The different and disparate skills and abilities of individuals in different subordinate groups

The existence of multiple hierarchies within the organization

Prevailing tensions between achievement of economies of scale and customization of services to match individual needs

Findings based on participant responses:

Leaders know their organizations are loosely coupled

Alignment within leadership coalitions and organization is critical

Critical to value each other’s role, responsibilities, and skills

Core professionals need lots of help to understand administrative issues

CEOs (more than core professionals) cannot favor any constituency

Core professionals must view their work as part of a larger whole

Recommendations from organizational theory:

Develop and focus on shared goals

Help subordinate groups value each others’ contribution

Expedite the integration of core professionals in administrative issues

Build power-sharing and collaborative decision making skills

Implement leadership succession planning initiatives

Increase ways consumers can help maximize organizational goals

Strengthen core professionals’ “investment” in the organization

Recommendations from organizational systems theory:

Vary the strength of organizational coupling

Strengthen internal networks

Integrate external networks productively

Embed learning organization principles (Senge, 1990)

Construct fractal leadership models (Wheatley, 1999) throughout

Tightly Coupled Organizations Loosely Coupled Organizations

Governance

Organizational and resource allocation decision made by a single individual (may or may not be subject to ratification by a board)

Regardless of qualifications of named figurehead, governance resembles a coalition of leaders from distinct and semiautonomous subordinate groups

Leadership Structure

Single hierarchy reporting to a single career CEO

At least two identifiable, semiautonomous subordinate divisions, each with its own hierarchy: core professionals rotate leadership by peer election every year or two; administrative and operational services are appointed to career positions

Decision-Making

Single individual with full authority over all decisions (may or may not be subject to ratification by a board)

Single individual with substantial input and cooperation of leadership coalition (may or may not be subject to ratification by a board)

Accountability

Most organizational employees are accountable only to the CEO and host organization (as long as those required to maintain a license do so)

Core professionals are accountable to their host organization as well as to their licensing boards or professional association and whatever external appointing authority (legislatures, governors, voters) may exist

Conclusions:

The differences between loosely coupled and tightly coupled organizations are significant, so leadership mindset and strategies must be adjusted

Many, if not most, leaders in loosely coupled organizations have had little preparation for coalition leadership

Core professionals find it hardest to “work across the professional divide”

Leaders need not bear full responsibility for their coalition’s success, organizational structures can and should be arranged to help

References: Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York, NY,

Plenum Press. Fusarelli, L. D. (2002). Tightly coupled policy in loosely coupled systems: Institutional

capacity and organizational change. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 561–575.

Meadows, D. (2009). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. Solutions for a sustainable and desirable future, 1(1), 41–49. Retrieved from http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/419

Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.

Stephenson, K. (2009). Neither hierarchy nor network: An argument for heterarchy. People and Strategy, 32(1), 3–7.

Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Kohler.