Andrew Lack 47 Deptford Ave Kings Langley NSW 2147 email

Personal Reactions

In 1996, I moved from a conservative high school of 600 students, with a highly centralised organisation, to a risk-taking K-12 school of 900 students with a diffuse management structure. As a coordinator, I struggled with the feeling that my management role was highly compromised by not having a trunk-line to the Principal. The school seemed to achieve many worthwhile targets, but communication between staff and between school sections was poor, and daily organisation was often last minute or ad hoc.

The single most helpful conceptual tool I found for explaining and coping with the new school culture was the idea of “loose coupling”. After grappling with the idea for an essay, I experienced a personal micro-paradigm shift, and started to develop patience with what was clearly a very “loose coupled” organisation. I was to go on to discover that this aspect of organisation at Pacific Hills Christian School was in fact endorsed and supported by the Principal, Dr. Boyce.

The concept described by Weick in articles such as “Educational Organisations as Loosely Coupled Systems” (1976) was originally explicative and descriptive. He went on to draw out the implications for action in such organisations (for instance in “Administering Education in Loosely Coupled Schools” in 1988). If nothing else, a functional model for an organisation allows the participants in the organisation’s activities to work to its strengths and take care for its weaknesses. This particular model also requires a hefty rethink of the role, goal and status of many of the actors in the school organisation. I have used it as a basis for my own action within the organisation, explanation for some of the machinations, and a framework for setting up change in my own faculty areas.

Loose Coupling Theory in Context

The concept proposed by Weick was part of a wide ranging search for proscriptive or descriptive models for educational institutions (ie what schools ought to be like or how schools actually work). Other theorists and researchers were examining issues of leadership and/or management (for example Duignan in “Reflective Management: The Key to Quality Leadership” (1988)), school system administration (including issues of self-management), culture and alternative organisation models taken from the business world.

Weick made the practical connection that schools simply did not behave like industrial or commercial enterprises. He acknowledges the writings of Glassman (1973) and March and Olsen (1975). From this area of study arose the concept that there were critical differences between what came to be called HSOs (Human Service Organisations) and profit-centred businesses. One of these differences was that the main business of HSOs, whether hospitals or schools, happened between professionals (doctors, nurses, teachers) and clients (patients or students). This primary business was supported by a backbone of administrative and resource services. Another description of this sort of organisation was presented by Kouzes and Mico (1979) under the heading Domain Theory. The key discovery that these writers (and Weick) both made, was that Administration was not the main source of expertise and decision making, disseminated through a hierarchy of management and workers. Rather, administration and the professionals tended to have different roles, independent authority, low levels of standardisation and even different agendas.

Loose coupling was the name for the operational links within such a structure. The theory of loose coupling not only explains how HSOs operate with such links, but attempts to explain why they are able to function with what at first glance many seem an inefficient and ineffective structure. Weick asks “…what does hold and educational organisation together?” (1976, p4).

Some educational researchers since about 1988 have taken up the idea. A trawl through ERIC returned around thirty articles on the subject with dates between 1988 and 1997 (see Appendix A). For some it has become part of their overall educational systems model (eg Stephen Horne 1992). For others, it is a convenient tool out of a tool box of models and metaphors. (In their extensive review of organisational theory, Robbins and Barnwell (1994) make only a passing reference to the notion in a table of “Ten different ways of looking at organisations…” (p9)).

Loose Coupling in Detail

(insert Calvinball cartoon )

At various stages, schools have been both described and designed as bureaucracies, machines, organisms and businesses. Considerable effort has been put into researching the way schools are and work, and in making the school organisation conform to expectations. Why is there anything left to say, describe or research?

It is certainly true that the cultures in which schools work have changed. It is possible that staff, students and parents have changed their expectations even in the last decade. It may also be true that the post modern position must be accepted… there are no absolute models (true models) only currently useful models. It seems likely, however, that something more surprising is going on. The mechanistic, bureaucratic or industrial models suggested this century have largely failed to explain the nature of a teachers role. The loose coupling theory proposed by Weick and others is part of a wider reassessment of what in fact has been going on for some time in the classroom.

Weick suggests that people in educational organisations do not work through organised sets of procedures passed down from managerial or technical experts. Even when things do occur through planning and vertical leadership, “people… [are] hard pressed … to find actual instances of those rational practices… or to feel that those rational occasions… explain much of what goes on…” (1976 p1). Business models leave a “substantial unexplained remainder” (1976, p1). He later chose four properties that needed to be present for conventional management to take place: interdependent people working under a rational, self correcting scheme, consensus on goals and means, effective dissemination of information and predictable problems with calculable responses. Schools, however, are “not like other organizations…” (1982, p673).

The term “loose coupling” appears to have originated in systems theory (Glassmen, 1973), especially applied to living systems. Weick often uses system theory terms such as “noise”, “feedback”, “environment” and “sub-systems” (1982 p675-6). The term is currently used (apart from Education Organisation discussions) by software engineers, where it refers to specific type of system design (a quick WWW search will reveal mainly references to this type of use). In general, a loose-coupled system has components that function together but evidence significant independence from each other. In organisations, this means more than departments that each have specialist goals, but which are all centrally administered, aligned to and furthering the core business. It may mean departments or individuals who have quite different ideas of what the core business is, and who have considerable power to make and implement their own choices. This is clearly not a view with many mechanical analogues. The closest I can think of is a type of linking in 3D graphics where a “parent” object is linked to a “child” object. The child object will move if the parent moves, but the parent is unaffected by adjustments made to the child object.

Weick proposes fifteen indicators of loose coupling. The list below uses mainly Weick’s terms on the left, with my comments on the right. Some of these indicators are not commented on at all by Weick, most are not refined in the school context (in the 1996 paper). Loose-coupling indicators:

slack times seasonal or occasional mismatch between resources and those who use them. This indicates a loose-coupling between the resource or administration structures and the staff or departments. a variety of means produce the same end indicates that departments or staff select and perfect their own techniques for achieving the broad school goals. richly connected slow networks the loose coupled system does not work well for message transmission… possibly because of this, each staff member tries to form their own network of advisers, enablers and sympathisers. poor coordination While each sub system (department, faculty, classroom) may work well by its own lights, a loose coupled system will tend to have dates clashing between departments, two groups in the hall at the same time, or a swimming carnival on during the final days of a music rehearsal (do you hear the pained voice of experience?) reduced regulations While this does not sound like most schools, many schools have sets of rules that are reactive, not produced originally as a set of planned production guides. Staff handbooks are demonstrably unread. planned unresponsiveness A catch-cry in some meetings is “this is not the correct forum”. This can also mean a deliberate walling off of faculties or classrooms. causal independence related (I suspect) to point 2 above… there is no one path of causality from, say, the board or Principal to a particular educational event in the classroom. difficulty in observation Because of points 2, 6 and 7 above, it is very hard for an observer (or a new staff member) to describe or evaluate the success of plans, or even the lines of action that lead to certain events. infrequent checking within the system The individuals or sub parts are left to get on with their business. A report, a final confirmation or a product (a musical or an exam result) is all that the direct checking between a senior executive member and the staff consists of. decentralisation Decision making is intentionally left to schools within the main school, to faculties or classroom staff. delegation of discretion Staff talk to parents without executive screening. Executives make sweeping decisions without the boards approval. absence of theoretically supposed linkages When strongly linked systems are supposed or imposed, (such as detailed and constant reporting back to the executive), the system is found wanting. structures that do not map the actual activity (my phrase) An organisational chart on the Principal’s wall shows a clear hierarchical structure. Never-the-less, staff do not report “up and down” the tree, middle managers range free, information is not to hand, and “if you really want to get something done, just….” followed by some non-hierarchical option. resistance to change A bowl of jelly is surprisingly resistant to imposition of a shape change, because part of it can give way, while the rest is unaffected. open entry to units or courses This implies that there is no simple or single logical sequence of instruction. Units are taken by students who want to when they want to.

While some of the points above sound negative, the state of loose-coupling is not one from which we must flee at all costs. It may in fact be a given for school like organisations. Its strengths lie in the same nature that gives rise to the problems… its lack of central hard control, and its encouragement of diversity, independence and interdependence. Wieck (1976 p pp6-8) gives a list of strengths, including the ability to adapt to local conditions, the room for self determination, its lack of dependence on the full functioning of every component and its ability to incorporate novel ideas. He restated these in another article as preservation of novelty, isolation of problems and sensitivity to local anomalies. Duignan (1988, p9) quotes Kolb as saying “the most effective learning systems are those that can tolerate differences in perspective” among organisational members”

Leadership and Culture

While the 1976 article deals mainly with the concepts and an outline for a research regime, the 1982 article focuses on the appropriate response of administrators to such a complex system that appears to resist direct management. It should be clear at the start that some aspects of schools are tight coupled… bus schedules and the payroll are Weick’s examples (1982, p673) to which one might add public exams, emergency plans and building programmes. In each case, we can see that there are clear rules, consensus about the actions, checks and inspection of the operation, and feed back to aid compliance . In loose coupled systems, “at least one of these four… is missing.” (1982, p674). He warns that “by definition, a loosely coupled system is… harder to administer” (1982, p675).

One area where administrators must learn to take care is in the systems response to disturbance. Tight coupled systems overreact, and loose coupled systems under-react (1982 p 674). In systems language this is the equivalent to underdamping and overdamping of the systems response to environmental change (my phrasing).

While the following table is not exhaustive, it is helpful to contrast the management style and properties of tight and loose coupled systems. The ideas are based on Weick 1982 pp675-6, but expanded with commentary and reference to other articles.

Tight Coupled Systems Loose Coupled Systems

Rely on diffusion, contagion and networks to spread information Cannot rely on networks to spread information, as relationships between groups are “intermittent” because of the lack of strong vertical hierarchy. People learn from mistakes as “superiors” check and correct people may not learn from mistakes… checking is infrequent, goals unclear, multiple techniques produce similar ends A clear view of the shop floor can be obtained from the board room The view from the “top” is obscured by static, slow communication, walls and delays. A bottom line (profit, expansion, customer satisfaction) can measure the entire success and effectiveness of the company Multiple criteria have to be used to assess the multiple goals, and the degree to which units are functioning successfully as independent, responsive and responsible. Inefficient practices and mistakes are corrected Inefficient practices and mistakes are considered for their possible hidden strengths as they may not affect the rest of the organisation. A diverse organisation may survive environment change more readily than a coherent mono-culture. Administrators select and implement policies and ventures, and expect completion in a tight time frame Administrators initiate numerous projects and ventures, with the expectation only some will come to fruition. Encouragement and ownership of an idea by a staff member are success mechanisms, as opposed to directives. Leadership is focussed and efficient Leadership is diffuse, requires more hours and effort than a tight coupled system, and is not focussed on a single project or “bottom line”. A leader will be concise, decisive and work at the top level only. A leader will be eloquent, persistent, patient and be prepared to work in detail as well as at the top level, as her job will be persuasion, vision sharing, enabling individuals to take on projects. The company ethos and culture underpin the company action, but formal structures (goals, appraisals, interdependent specialists) tie the company components together. The organisation ethos and culture underpins the school, and acts as the glue that ties the independent units together, and the sides of the race down which the units move. “The administrator’s voice and vision are two of the few things that teachers share in common” (Weick 1982, p675) Issues that attract consensus are useful, but executives make final decisions Issues that attract consensus are of special interest, as they form common bonds (see point 9 above). A chain of command allows executives to rule “from on high” The executive needs to move around to test the mood and talk to individuals in all sectors of the school.

What type of theory is this?

One of the vexed questions in the domain of education research is to determine what broad world view writers and researchers are working in. There are many options for positions on ontology and epistemology (what exists and how we know about it), with the most common tension between an “empirical science” view which seeks facts to evolve explicative theories about causal links, and a post-modern view in which theories are culturally dependant models that cannot be appealed to as “true” or “false”, and which evoke their own domain of facts (theory dependant observation).

There is a second polarity between description and proscription, as theorists are usually straddling the divide between what is and what ought to be.

Weick makes his own position plain: “the concept of loose coupling need not be used normatively.” He admits that “this paper takes a neutral, if not mildly affectionate, stance” (1976, p6). Reading of the later paper (1986) makes it clear that while he sees strengths in loose coupled systems, his main point is that this is in fact the way such systems are linked, and the only way to be effective in the system is to understand and work with the inherent strengths and weaknesses. There is thus an underlying hypothesis, not addressed in either article, that “thus it is and thus it shall be”. Duignan (1974) presents the work of Ann Arbor (Hasenfeld and English (eds.) 1974) in an explanation and justification of just this thesis. He lists reasons why Human Service Organisation goals are “problematical and ambiguous” (p 11), the “technology” (procedures) are indeterminate (p11), professional staff are typically employed (p12), and measurement is difficult (p 14).

It is possible that the birth place of the concept (in systems theory, not educational observation) has falsely given it the feel of being a universal mechanism. I will be particularly interested to watch reactions at my school to reading this paper. The more that staff involved in schooling find this a liberating and clarifying model, the more likely it is that Weick has hit on a truly low level mechanism that has existed unexplained or described for some time. Wallace and Wildy (1995) do not use the term “loose coupled” at all, but they refer constantly to the issues above as being part of the nature of “new schools”. They mention multiple goals, multiple participants in decision making, varieties of effective teaching methods, and non-rational, flexible models (esp p 14-15).

Nilakant refers to the “Loose-Coupling” Institutional Theory of Meyer and Scott, who use it to explain the difference between the outward appearance and “operational structures” of institutions (1995, p2). Lankard refers to a “loose-tight” model for the inculcation of TQM philosophy, where “senior officers function as facilitators as well as leaders” (1992).

Pacific Hills Christian School and Loose Coupling

Pacific Hills Christian School is a K-12 school with an innovative attitude. It is designed as a (relatively) low-fee non-selective school with an expressly Christian board, staff and practise. There are three school divisions (Junior, Middle and Senior) each with a “Head of School”. The school seeks and supports students with disabilities to join its Integration program (roughly one per class). Other innovations currently being pursued include “cradle to grave” schooling, alternative senior structures and courses, K-12 faculties and off-site education at a recently purchased centre in Cooma.

On many measures, this is a stable and successful Independent Christian School, with growing enrolment, pleasant facilities (don’t all schools have portables?), and dedicated professional staff. Surely such a situation came about through the operation of a strong and directive Principal, working with an equally forceful executive?

On my arrival at the school in 1996, it rapidly became clear that such assumptions were faulty. The Principal simply did not behave as expected. While he welcomed staff to his office, sought out staff to discuss ideas and was very visible at morning teas and devotions, problems presented to him were often redirected to others. Someone going to him with a problem in one project was likely to leave having had two or three more projects suggested. Teachers, Coordinators and Assistant Principals (now Heads of School) were delegated considerable responsibility, and expected to act through this without intimate reporting or checking. As I had come from a school where a common phrase of the Principals was “the buck stops here” and another “why haven’t I heard about this before now”, this was all mystifying.

Moreover, there was at least a predictable amount of restlessness amongst staff (predictable given the change process the school was going through, and had been for some years). However, there was an unexpected vehemence in comments made about various “centralising” moves instigated by the administration department (formally expressed letters of employment and conditions, tighter budgeting protocols). There was a particularly vibrant dynamic amongst Coordinators who had been asked to “reform” away from a traditional school structure.

Lining these observations up against the description of issues and indicators in loose coupled systems above starts to produce some clarification.

The Principal’s View

It transpired that my guesses about organisation at Pacific Hills were sound. In conversations with me in 1997 and 1998, and in reports of similar conversations with other executives, the Principal has made it quite clear that his intention in administration is to avoid the minuti ¦ (this is not the avoidance of what Weick calls “watching the fine grain” 1982, p676). He does this not out of a sense of hierarchical control (“I’m a big picture man”) or lack of time, but because he believes that the staff he has employed are indeed professionals, and must be left to work out details in their own domain. His role in the school is both inward and outward… a considerable amount of time being spent with visitors, community contacts, politicians and friends of the school. His role in administration is to be guardian of the culture and ethos of the school (and the PHCS ethos is specifically encoded and promulgated as a statement of belief, a mission statement, and a strategic plan arising therefrom). He also acts deliberately as an initiator of projects and ventures, and does this with patience and enthusiasm. These activities map accurately onto the list above of appropriate ways for administrators to behave in loose coupled systems.

The Teacher’s Experience

Staff are clearly conscious to one degree or another of the part expected of them. Discipline, it is understood, is to be handled by classroom teachers to the degree that they wish. Support is always available, but there is no formal list of actions that necessitate a staff member moving a problem through to a Coordinator or year adviser. While some staff find this threatening, and it is possible for a staff member to try to cope with too much, many staff find this liberating as they are trusted to respond appropriately (within such guidelines as the school’s sexual harassment policy, policy on corporal punishment and so on).

As problems of resources, rooming and equipment occur, most staff try and fix these working “across channels” rather than “through channels”. (This comment is observational, not a pejorative). If you can move something, find something or arrange something yourself, you do so.

There are a surprisingly high number of “cultural” events. Staff are expected at devotions each morning, and staff who lead take considerable effort, often focussing on personal stories or history. All birthdays are celebrated, and there are a number of running gags. Staff new to the school attend a series of after school orientations. Other example include Senior students put on a morning tea for staff at the end of the term and the Art Department which has a special showing of works for staff. At the end of the year, all staff, parents and students K-12 form a guard of honour to farewell the outgoing year twelves from their final assembly.

Coordinators and Change

One of the groups in the school who is struggling hardest with the issues of changing roles is the KLA coordinator group. As part of the school’s restructuring for Middle school, the Principal evolved a significant redefinition of the Coordinator’s position and responsibilities. The argument went something like this…

Middle school will involve years 5-8 inclusive. This means that staff in middle school in years 7-8 will be reporting primarily to their Head of School as Home Room Teachers, rather than to Coordinators. It means Coordinators will be administering less periods because Senior school will operate from years 9-12. There is a need for the integration and coordination of school subjects K-12 If we ask Coordinators to take responsibility for curriculum development and programming K-12, this will overload them again. Coordinators are likely to tend to over-emphasise their relationship to senior school. The solution is for Coordinators to divest themselves of their administrative roles in senior school, and to become part of a separate K-12 curriculum structure, under a Director of Studies.

For the last three years, this process has moved forward with many hiccups and much travail. Why is it so hard to introduce such an innovation? It is easy to berate Coordinators for wanting to “maintain their empires” or for being resistant to change. In actual fact, the loose coupled analysis paints a clearer picture of some of the forces at work. Weick warns constantly that independent loose coupled sub-units are highly resistant to change… not as a personality failing, but because they are prized, trained and employed to be so! This is in fact one of the strengths of a loose coupled system. It should not be a surprise that actively redrafting or dismantling sub-units will be difficult and will not be achieved by mere fiat.

I spent some time in 1997 trying to put the intended school structures into a schema. I am not sure I succeeded, though I will include three attempts in appendix C. Broadly speaking, the school was trying to create what in business organisation theory is called a matrix structure (described, for instance, in Robbins and Barnwell 1994 pp285-290). The irony for anyone convinced of the relevance of the loose coupled model, is that a matrix structure is in fact a way of introducing flexibility or efficiency to a hierarchical organisation. The jury is still out (at PHCS) as to what happens when you try to apply such a structure to a loose coupled organisation. Does it represent an attempt to move toward more hierarchical structures? Is it thus doomed to failure (if the Wieck and Duignan hypothesis is right)? Can it be introduced as a loose coupled analogue of a tight coupled matrix, and what would such a structure look like? Given the inherent resistance to change in loose coupled systems, the dialectic process of thesis (a traditional structure already reinterpreted into a loose coupled system) and antithesis (a new structure more at home in a tight coupled system) may take some time to evolve a synthesis.

Differing agendas

It is a sage teacher who can actually track the differing agendas posted around a staff or executive meeting. There are not only three different schools sharing resources, but faculties that are organised “at right angles” (see the discussion above) also seeking shares of resources or time or attention. Across all this the Integration department and the Careers and Special programs department express their own independent needs.

One of the tensions I had not anticipated at Pacific Hills was a lack of trust in the Administration department by some staff. While the I understood the typical frisson between teaching staff and the holders of the purse string and between the frantically busy and the insisters on protocol and forms, this seemed to be beyond this level. Analysis under the loose coupled model would suggest that the deep issues are probably unresolved conflicts between agendas in a situation where the implicit power-to-act of the teaching professionals was restrained by the exercise of centralising power in budgeting, project management, resource provision and administrative paperwork. This again is not a matter of judgment about who did or did not do something wrong. Loose coupled organisations will have departments with differing agendas, and independent units still need the support of administrative departments to function. Many actions (such as Information Technology roll-out and building programs) clearly must be tight coupled. If there is a solution in this area (and I hope there is) it is to have both departments recognise the other’s invaluable role, and to also encourage clear acceptance of what is to be endorsed as “loose” and decentralised, and what must by necessity be tight coupled.

Finally

One of the problems of the loose coupled model may well be that the experience of schools does not lead one to enjoy the idea of poor communication, lack of firm control or multiple goals. The idea may well invite resistance or even attack as merely “excusing the inexcusable”. Still, most staff at one time or other have sighed “I don’t know what is wrong with this place…”. Perhaps knowing does not solve “the problem”, but I’d rather be lost in the woods with a flashlight than without.

Bibliography

Bolman, L. G. & Terrence, E. D. 1991 Reframing Organizations Artistry, Choice and Leadership

Jossey – Bass Publishers, San Francisco Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T.E. 1985 Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organisations” Josse Bass, London

Quoted in Duignan 1988. Dellar, G. B. 1995 “The Impact of School-based Management on Classroom Practice at the Secondary School-level” Issues in Educational Research, 5 (1) pages 23-34 Duignan, P. A. 1988 “Reflective Management: The Key to Quality Leadership” in The International Journal of Educational Management, 2(2) Pages 3-12 Duignan, P.A. 1974 “Characteristics of Human Service Organisations” Human Service Organisations

University of Michigan Press, pp6-15 Glassman, R.B. 1973 “Persistence and loose coupling in living systems.” Behavioural Science, 18: 83-98 Horne, S. ` “Organisation and Change within Educational Systems: Some Implications of a Loose-Coupled Model” Educational Management and Administration, v20 No. 2 pp 88-98. Khun, T. The Copernican Revolution Kolb, D.A. 1974 “Learning and Problem Solving” Organisational Psychology, 2nd ed.

Prentice-Hall, Hempstead

Quoted in Duignan 1988. Kouzes, J.M. and Mico, P.R. 1979 “Domain Theory: An Introduction to Organizational Behaviour in Human Service Organisations” Journal of Applied Behavioural Sciences, vol 15, no. 4 pp. 449-469. Lack, A. D. 1998 Unpublished essay for EDAS 401 “..use the organisation with which you are most familiar… to predict and justify the major changes that could take place … during the next decade” Lack, A. D. 1998 Unpublished essay for EDAS 401 “Describe the major contributions of two organisation theorists…” Lankard, B. A. 1992 “Total Quality Management: application in Vocational Education” ERIC Digest No. 125 (ED347404 92)

March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. 1975 “Choice Situations in Loosely Coupled Worlds.” Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. Nilakant, V. 1995 “Book Review: Danaldson, Lex: American Anti-Management Theories of Organization 1995, Cambridge…” http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/indexv11/Nilikant.htm Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H. Jnr 1982 In Search of Excellence Harper & Row, Publishers, New York. Robbins, S.P. and Barnwell, N.B. 1994 Organisation Theory in Australia Prentice Hall, New York. Shon, D. 1983 The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action Basic Books, New York

Quoted in Duignan 1988. Wallace, J. and Wildy, H 1995 “The Changing World of School Leadership” The Prctising Administrator, vol 1, p14-17 Watterson, B. 1992 The Indispensable Calvin and Hobbes Warner Books, London Weick, K.E. 1982 “Administering Education in Loosely Coupled Schools” in Phi Beta Kappan. Vol 63 No 10, June Pages 673-676 Weick, K.E. 1976 “Educational Organisations as Loosely Coupled Systems” Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, pp 1-19

by Andrew Lack, copied with permission. See http://www.ozemail.com.au/~adl/essays/loosecoupling.htm