IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v27y2016i1p36-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Changing Rules, Changing Practices: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Tight Coupling in Figure Skating

Author

Listed:
  • Stacy E. Lom

    (Department of Sociology, University of Central Arkansas, Conway, Arkansas 72035)

Abstract

In this article, I examine the effects of tight coupling on organizational activities through a case study of the judging changes in figure skating following the 2002 Olympic judging scandal, which have transformed skating. In keeping with research that has called for a more complete understanding of the relationship between organizational structures and daily activities, I argue that institutional theory has treated coupling too broadly and that we need a better understanding of what tight coupling looks like at the micro level. Drawing on a mixed-methods approach, I contribute to this agenda by highlighting the direct and indirect effects of a specific type of tight coupling: one that arises from rule changes and is based on quantification. In doing so, this article also underscores how members of organizations actively shape their fields through their everyday practices and contributes to our understanding of the microfoundations of institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Stacy E. Lom, 2016. "Changing Rules, Changing Practices: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Tight Coupling in Figure Skating," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 36-52, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:27:y:2016:i:1:p:36-52
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2015.1018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1018
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2015.1018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martha S. Feldman & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2011. "Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1240-1253, October.
    2. Victoria L. Mitchell & Robert W. Zmud, 1999. "The Effects of Coupling IT and Work Process Strategies in Redesign Projects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 424-438, August.
    3. Haridimos Tsoukas & Robert Chia, 2002. "On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(5), pages 567-582, October.
    4. Power, Michael K., 2003. "Auditing and the production of legitimacy," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 379-394, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. T. Anderson & J. S. Busby & M. Rouncefield, 2020. "Understanding the Ecological Validity of Relying Practice as a Basis for Risk Identification," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1383-1398, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luciana D’Adderio, 2014. "The Replication Dilemma Unravelled: How Organizations Enact Multiple Goals in Routine Transfer," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1325-1350, October.
    2. Alexandra Michel, 2014. "The Mutual Constitution of Persons and Organizations: An Ontological Perspective on Organizational Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 1082-1110, August.
    3. Paula Jarzabkowski & Sarah Kaplan, 2015. "Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 537-558, April.
    4. Martha S. Feldman & Brian T. Pentland & Luciana D’Adderio & Nathalie Lazaric, 2016. "Beyond Routines as Things: Introduction to the Special Issue on Routine Dynamics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 505-513, June.
    5. Verstegen, Luuk & Houkes, Wybo & Reymen, Isabelle, 2019. "Configuring collective digital-technology usage in dynamic and complex design practices," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    6. Anja Danner-Schröder & Daniel Geiger, 2016. "Unravelling the Motor of Patterning Work: Toward an Understanding of the Microlevel Dynamics of Standardization and Flexibility," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 633-658, June.
    7. Paula A. Jarzabkowski & Jane K. Lê & Martha S. Feldman, 2012. "Toward a Theory of Coordinating: Creating Coordinating Mechanisms in Practice," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 907-927, August.
    8. Haridimos Tsoukas, 2017. "Don't Simplify, Complexify: From Disjunctive to Conjunctive Theorizing in Organization and Management Studies," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 132-153, March.
    9. Philip Stiles & Jonathan Trevor & Elaine Farndale & Shad S. Morris & Jaap Paauwe & Guenter Stahl & Patrick Wright, 2015. "Changing Routine: Reframing Performance Management within a Multinational," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 63-88, January.
    10. Ahmed Saleh Mohamed Alichleh AL-Ali & Gyanendra Singh Sisodia & Bhumika Gupta & Murale Venugopalan, 2022. "Change Management and Innovation Practices during Pandemic in the Middle East E-Commerce Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-14, April.
    11. Wenzel, Matthias & Stjerne, Iben Sandal, 2021. "Heuristics-in-use: Toward a practice theory of organizational heuristics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    12. Geoffrey Leuridan & Benoît Demil, 2022. "Exploring the dynamics of slack in extreme contexts," Post-Print hal-03931024, HAL.
    13. Collins, David & Dewing, Ian & Russell, Peter, 2009. "Postcards from the Front: Changing narratives in UK financial services," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(8), pages 884-895.
    14. Guénin-Paracini, Henri & Malsch, Bertrand & Paillé, Anne Marché, 2014. "Fear and risk in the audit process," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 264-288.
    15. Goodson, Brian M. & Grenier, Jonathan H. & Maksymov, Eldar, 2023. "When law students think like audit litigation attorneys: Implications for experimental research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    16. Burt, George & Mackay, David J. & van der Heijden, Kees & Verheijdt, Charlotte, 2017. "Openness disposition: Readiness characteristics that influence participant benefits from scenario planning as strategic conversation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 16-25.
    17. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Post-Print halshs-03718851, HAL.
    18. Shahzad Khurram & Sandra Charreire Petit, 2017. "Investigating the Dynamics of Stakeholder Salience: What Happens When the Institutional Change Process Unfolds?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 485-515, July.
    19. Gary T. Burke & Carola Wolf, 2021. "The Process Affordances of Strategy Toolmaking when Addressing Wicked Problems," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 359-388, March.
    20. Guiette, Alain & Vandenbempt, Koen, 2017. "Change managerialism and micro-processes of sensemaking during change implementation," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 65-81.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:27:y:2016:i:1:p:36-52. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.