نظریه اتصال سست و تحلیل ساختار سازمانی مبتنی بر رویکرد دیالکتیک : رهیافتی نوین در مدیریت جهادی و حکمرانی اسلامی
محورهای موضوعی : مدیریت جهادی
سینا شهیدی
1
(دانشجوی دکتری حسابداری، واحد کاشان،دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی،کاشان،ایران)
محسن امینی خوزانی
2
(استادیار گروه مهندسی مالی، واحد شهرقدس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران)
اعظم سروی
3
(استادیار گروه حسابداری، واحد گلپایگان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، گلپایگان، ایران)
میثم عرب‌زاده
4
(استادیار گروه حسابداری، واحد کاشان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی ،کاشان، ایران)
کلید واژه: نظریه اتصال سست , رویکرد دیالکتیک , پاسخگویی , تمایز,
چکیده مقاله :
نظریه اتصال سست به عنوان رهیافتی نوین در مدیریت برای درک ساختار و فرآیندهای سازمانی در حوزه مطالعات سازمانی پدیدار شد. هدف از این مقاله بررسی مطالعات و پژوهش هایی است که به نظریه اتصال سست و تحلیل ارتباطات در ساختار سازمانی پرداخته‌اند. این مقاله با برجسته کردن مفاهیم مرتبط با نظریه اتصال سست بواسطه دو بعد اصلی از یک رویکرد دیالکتیکی یعنی متمایز بودن وپاسخگویی پشتیبانی میشود و سعی دارد تا با ارایه وضوح مفهومی در مورد ویژگی¬های اصلی اتصال‌های سازمانی و عملیاتی‌سازی آن ، به درک بهتر مسائل سازمانی کمک کند. ساختار اتصال سست عناصر سازمانی را نشان می‌دهد که می‌توانند به‌گونه‌ای به یکدیگر مرتبط شوند که پاسخگو باشند، اما شواهد جدایی و هویت را حفظ کنند . اتصال قوی تر باعث ایجاد ثبات ، کنترل و کارایی میشود در حالی که اتصال سست سبب انعطاف‌پذیری ، سازگاری و نوآوری می‌گردد. بررسی ها نشان می‌دهد که مفاهیم اصلی مورد مطالعه پیرامون این دیدگاه شامل اجزای اتصال ، انواع اتصال و اشکال اتصال است که با توجه به رابطه دیالکتیکی بین متمایز بودن و پاسخگویی تحلیل می‌شوند.
Loose coupling theory emerged as a new approach in management to understand organizational structure and processes in the field of organizational studies. The purpose of this article is to review the studies and researches that have dealt with the theory of loose coupling and analysis of communication in organizational structure. This article is supported by highlighting the concepts related to the theory of loose coupling through two main dimensions of a dialectical approach, i.e. distinctiveness and responsiveness, and it tries to provide a better understanding of organizational issues by providing conceptual clarity about the main characteristics of organizational couplings and its operationalization. help. A loosely coupled structure represents organizational elements that can be linked together in such a way that they are responsive, but retain evidence of separateness and identity. Stronger coupling creates stability, control, and efficiency, while looser coupling creates flexibility, adaptation, and innovation. Studies show that the main concepts studied around this perspective include coupling components, coupling types, and coupling forms, which are analyzed according to the dialectical relationship between distinctiveness and responsiveness.
1) 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.
2) Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. (2002). 15 Loosely coupled performance measurement systems. Business Performance Management, 244.
3) 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.
4) Arango ,V, L., & Gentilin, M. (2021). Organi¬zational couplings: A literature review. Innovar, 31(79), 161- 178.
5) Bachmann, A. S. (2006). Melting pot or tossed salad? Implications for designing effective multicultural workgroups. Management In¬ternational Review, 46, 721-748.
6) Beekun, R. I., & Ginn, G. 0. (1993). Business strategy and interorganizational with the acute care hospital industry: An expansion of the Miles and Snow typology. Human Relations, 46( 1 1 ), 129 1 - 13 18.
7) Beekun, R. I., & Glick, W. H. (2001). Organization structure from a loose coupling perspective: A multidimensional approach. Decision Sci¬ences, 32(2), 227-250.
8) Bisbe, J., Batista-Foguet, J.-M., & Chenhall, R. (2007). Defining management accounting constructs: A methodological note on the risks of conceptual misspecification. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7e8), 789e820.
9) Bleiklie, I., Enders, J., & Lepori, B. (2015). Organizations as Penetrated Hierarchies: Environmental Pressures and Control in Professional Organizations. Organization Studies, 36(7), 873-896.
10) 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.
11) Brown, D. A., Malmi, T., & Booth, P. J. (2009). Loose coupling theory of management control systems (pp. 1e19). Sidney: School of Accounting Working Papers, University of Technology, 86.
12) Busco, C., Giovannoni, E. and Riccaboni, A. (2017), Sustaining multiple logics within hybrid organisations, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 30(1), 191-216.
13) Cameron, K.S., Kim, M.U., Whetten, D.A., 1987. Organisational effects of decline and turbulence. Admin. Sci. Quart. 32, 137–157.
14) Chenhall, R. H., & Moers, F. (2015). The role of innovation in the evolution of management accounting and its integration into management control. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 47, 1-13.
15) Collier, P.M., 2001. The power of accounting: a field study of local financial management in a police force. Manag. Account. Res. 12 (4), 465–486.
16) Covaleski, M. A., & Dirsmith, D. W. (1983). Budgeting as a means for control and loose coupling. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 8,323-340.
17) Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Towards a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284-295.
18) Demartini, M.C & Otley , D . (2020). Beyond the system vs. package dualism in Performance Management Systems design: A loose coupling approach Accounting, Organizations and Society . 86, 1-15.
19) Elken, M. & Vukasovic, M. (2019). The Looseness of Loose Coupling: The Use and Misuse of “Loose Coupling” in Higher Education Research. In J. Huisman and M. Tight (Ed.), Theory and Method in Higher Education Research. 5. 53-71.
20) Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202- 225.
21) Firestone, W. A. (1984). The study of loose coupling: Problems, progress, and prospects. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans.
22) Grabowski, M., & Roberts, K. H. (1998). Risk mitigation in virtual organizations. Journal of Computer and Mediated Communication, 3(4), 1-33.
23) Glassman, R.B., 1973. Persistence and loose coupling in living systems. Behav. Sci. 18, 83–98.
24) 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
. 25) Hofman . E. Halman .J. Song .M. 2016. When to Use Loose or Tight Alliance Networks for Innovation? Empirical Evidence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1 :1-19.
26) 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.
27) Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1-47.
28) Lepori, B. and Montauti, M. (2020), Bringing the organization back in: flexing structural responses to competing logics in budgeting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 80.
29) Liguori, M., & Steccolini, I. (2011). Accounting change: Explaining the outcomes, interpreting the process. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(1), 27-70.
30) 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), 1e17.
31) Logan, C. S., Ellett, C. D., & Licata, J. W. (1993). Structural coupling, robustness and effectiveness of schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 31(4),19-32.
32) Lom, S. E. (2016). Changing rules, changing practices: The direct and in-direct effects of tight coupling in figure skating. Organization Sci¬ence, 27(1), 36-52.
33) London, M., & London, M. M. (1996). Tight coupling in high performing teams. Human Resource Management Review, 6(1), 1-24.
34) Lukka, K. (2007). Management accounting change and stability: Loosely coupled rules and routines in action. Management Accounting Research, 18(1), 76-101.
35) 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.
36) 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.
37) 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.
38) Malmi, T., & Brown, D. A. (2008). Management control systems as a packagedopportunities,challenges and research directions. Management Accounting Research, 19(4), 287e300.
39) Mammela. A, Riekki.J, Kiviranta,M. 2023 . Loose Coupling: An Invisible Thread in the History of Technology. journal published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Vol. 11, 59456- 59482.
40) Mamat ,S. , Nik Ahmad ,N, N., & Said ,J, M,.(2021). Financial sustainability in Malaysian public universities: coping with or embracing hange?. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management.
41) Marriott,N, Mellett,H & , Macniven .L. (2011). Loose coupling in asset management systems in the NHS. Management Accounting Research , 22 ,198– 208.
42) Meyerson, D., Martin, J., 1987. Cultural change: an integration of threedifferent views. J. Manag. Stud. 24, 623–647.
43) Misangyi, V. F. (2016). Institutional complexity and the meaning of loose coupling: Connecting institutional sayings and (not) do¬ings. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 407-440.
44) Modell, S. (2003). Goals versus institutions: The development of performance measurement in the Swedish university sector. Management Accounting Research, 14(4), 333-359.
45) Modell, S. (2004). Performance measurement myths in the public sector: A research note. Financial Accountability and Management, 20(1), 39-55.
46) Moilanen, S. (2012). Learning and the loosely coupled elements of Accounting and Organizational Change, 8(2), 136e159.
47) Newton, J. D., Ewing, M. T., & Collier, P. M. (2014). Resolving contradictions in institutional demands through loose coupling. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(5), 747- 753.
48) Nor-Aziah, A. K., & Scapens, R. W. (2007). Corporatisation and accounting change: The role of accounting and accountants in a Malaysian public utility. Management Accounting Research, 18(2), 209- 247.
49) Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203-223
. 50) Ogawa, Y. (2002). Challenging the traditional organization of Japanese universities. Higher Education, 43(1), 85-108.
51) Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
52) 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.
53) Pilbeam, C. (2006). Generating additional revenue streams in UK universities: An analysis of variation between disciplines and institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(3), 297-311.
54) Rasche, A. (2012). Global policies and local practice: Loose and tight couplings in multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quar¬terly, 22(4), 679-708.
55) 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.
56) Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowl¬edge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 63-76.
57) Sanchez, R. (1997). Preparing for an uncertain future: Managing organizations for strategic flexibility. Internutionul Studies of Management and Organization,63-76.
58) 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.
59) Silvast, A., & Kelman, I. (2013). Is the Normal Accidents perspective falsi-fiable? Disaster Prevention and Management, 22(1), 7-16.
60) Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
61) 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.
62) Snook, S. A. (2000). Friendlyfire: The accidental shootdown of US. Black Hawks over Northern Iraq.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
63) Spekl_e, R. F., van Elten, H. J., & Widener, S. K. (2017). Creativity and control: A paradoxdevidence from the levers of control framework. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 29(2), 73-96.
64) Staber, U., & Sydow, J. (2002). Organizational adaptive capacity: A struc-turation perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(4), 408- 424.
65) Sulaiman, S., & Mitchell, F. (2005). Utilising a typology of management accounting change: An empirical analysis. Management Accounting Research, 16(4), 422-437.
66) Tao.Y, Lai.X, Zhou.S. 2023 . Information sharing in a transparent supply chain with transportation disruptions and supplier competition. Journal Annals of Operations Research ISSN 02545330, Volume 329.
67) Thoenig, J.-C., & Paradeise, C. (2016). Strategic Capacity and Organisational Capabilities: A Challenge for Universities. Minerva, 54(3), 293-324.
68) 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.
69) Trein, Ph. (2015). How to compare the coordination of policy sectors? Coupling of actors, institutions and policies. University of Lausanne. 1-26.
70) Vakkuri, J. and Johanson, J.-E. (2020), Failed promises–performance measurement ambiguities in hybrid universities. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 17(1), 33-50.
71) Van der Kolk, B., & Schokker, T. (2016). Strategy implementation through hierarchical couplings in a management control package: An explorative case study.Journal of Management Control, 27(2), 129e154.
72) Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.
73) Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
74) Weick, K. E. (1982). Administering education in loosely coupled schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 63(10), 673e676.
75) Weick, K. E. (1985). The concept of loose coupling: An assessment. Analog, 1-14.
