Organizational Coupling and Adaptability

Note: Coupling in organizational design is different from coupling in software design, as you will come to understand in further chapters. For now, just remember that these are two different concepts and should not, by default, be considered one and the same.

Research by Wilson & Corbett in 1983, further highlighted by Firestone in 1985, found that tightly coupled structures—where different parts (teams/units) of an organization are closely linked—are generally better at adapting to widespread changes compared to loosely coupled structures, which have more independent parts. This idea was supported by Meyerson & Martin in 1987, who observed that managers struggle to plan, predict, control, or enact changes in organizations that are loosely coupled.

Applied to the context of software development, when teams are assigned responsibilities related to different components of the same customer product, this can be seen as a loosely coupled design (Pattern 1). While this allows teams to operate independently, it is challenging to implement larger changes, whether shifting the team's focus to another piece of the product (adaptability), altering the product's direction, or modifying the organizational structures (flexibility). In essence, the independence afforded by loose coupling can make it difficult to pivot or adapt when necessary—possibly limiting the organization’s agility to stay relevant in a VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) world.

Here is some further reading on organizational coupling, as well as the research mentioned earlier:

• Organizational Couplings: a literature review

• Dealing with Tight Couplings and Multiple Interactions in Complex Technological Systems

• Loosely Coupled Systems: a reconceptualization

• Organization Structure from a Loose Coupling Perspective: a multidimensional approach