Internal
Links

Top
 Review Notes on   CO:  Decision Making
External
Links
Link
 An Overview of Decision Making   
Link
 Decision Making Processes   
Link
       Rationality   
Link
       Rational / Classic Model of Decision Making   
Link
       Bounded Rationality & Satisficing by Simon (These are components of the Admin Model)   
Link
 The Orgl Env, Technology & Decision Making  
Link
 Administrative Model of Decision Making by March & Simon   
Link
 Organized Anarchies   
Link
          Garbage Can Model of Decision Making   
Link
          Consequences of the Garbage Can Model of Dec Mking   
Link
 Recognition Primed Decision Making   
Link
          A Comparison of Rational Decision Making & Recognition Primed Decision Making   
Link
          Intuitive Decision Making   
Link
 The Role of Information & Decision Making   
 Link
 Organizational Power   
Link
          Power & Decision Making   
Link
 Strategic Decisions   
Link
          Organizational Goals & Decision Making   
Link
          Escalating Situations   
Link
 Ethical Decision Making: Boundary Dilemmas   
Link
          The Options for Dealing w/ Unethical Behavior   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 An Overview of  Decision Making
External
Links
  THERE ARE MANY TYPES OF DECISIONS, INCLUDING STRATEGIC, MID LEVEL, LOWER LEVEL, IMMEDIATE, & OTHERS   
  A decision is the determination of the answer to a question   
  In the process of decision making, the determination of the decision question, i.e. the criteria for the question, may be more important that the decision / answer itself   
  A decision is a formally pronounced judgment   
  Some decisions are "non decisions" in that the failure to decide or act is a decision in & of itself   
  A decision is the "making up of one's mind" as in a resolution   
  A resolution, as the making up of one's mind, is often a future decision, i.e. it is not known when any action that comes from a decision that is based on the resolution will be made   
  PROGRAMMED DECISIONS ARE REPETITIVE & WELL DEFINED, & PROCEDURES EXIST FOR RESOLVING THE PROBLEM   
  Programmed decisions are well structured because criteria of performance are normally clear, good info is available, alternatives are easily specified, & there is certainty that the chosen alternative will be successful   
  Programmed decisions are made in response to recurring problems & opportunities   
  Programmed decisions frequently develop into programs   
  Programs are standard sequences of behaviors that people follow routinely when encountering a particular type of problem or opportunity   
  Orgs develop programs when the same kinds of problems or opportunities keep arising   
  Orgl rules are designed to help members make programmed decisions   
  People need to be aware that they should change programs & rules as needed   
  Often, people & orgs are slow to change programs & rules because is seems simpler to do things the way they have always been done, & because it takes more time & effort, & incurs more risk, to change the way things are done   
 
 Examples of programmed decisions include simple decisions such as: 
 
  - decision rules such as when to replace an office copy machine or complex decisions that have become routine   
  - when & how to open a new branch or franchise   
 
 Nonprogrammed decisions are novel & poorly defined, & no procedure exists for solving the problem or exploiting an opportunity 
 
  Nonprogrammed decisions are used when a problem or an opportunity has not been encountered before & people may not know how to respond   
  In a nonprogrammed decision:   
  -  people must choose how to respond to novel situations   
  -  because the decision situation is often new or novel, people often begin w/ searching for info  (more on info searches & decision making below)   
  -  clear cut decision criteria do not exist   
  -  alternatives are fuzzy   
  -  there is uncertainty about whether a proposed solution will solve the problem   
  -  typically, few alternatives can be developed for a nonprogrammed decision, so a single solution is custom tailored   
  Examples of nonprogrammed decisions include the Tylenol poisonings, developing a new program such as a new product, a new general education curriculum, etc.   
  DECISIONS MAY INVOLVE RATIONAL, INTUITIVE, BELIEF ORIENTED, & OTHER TYPES OF COGNITION   
 
 Just as leadership takes place throughout the org, decision making occurs throughout the org 
 
 
 In any analysis of decision making, one must be sure to make no assumptions of rationality   
  Thompson holds that decisions involve the TWO dimensions of: 
a.  beliefs about cause/effect relationships 
b.  preferences regarding possible outcomes 
 
 
 Beliefs & preferences about the process & outcome of decision making can operate at a conscious level, at the individual level, group level, or the org level 
 
  IN RELATIONSHIP TO CERTAINTY, THERE ARE FIVE TYPES OF DECISIONS INCLUDING: 
A.  ROUTINE / COMPUTATIONAL 
B.  JUDGMENTAL 
C.  COMPROMISE / STRATEGIC 
D.  INSPIRATIONAL
E.  NON DECISIONS 		  
Link
 The Figure: The Cause / Effect Relationships & Preferences in Decision Making, by Thompson, notes that there are FIVE types of decisions including routine / computational, judgmental, compromise / strategic, inspirational, & non decisions 
 
Link
 A.  ROUTINE / COMPUTATIONAL DECISIONS have uncertain outcomes & certain cause / effect relationships 
 
  Computational decisions may be performed by a computer w/ great simplicity   
 
 Computational decisions often remove decision making from the lower levels of the org 
 
  Setting up the process of computational decision making is often a decision that impacts the entire org & removes power from mid & lower level orgs   
 
 B.  JUDGMENTAL DECISIONS have certain outcomes & uncertain cause / effect relationships.  Judgment enters in determining what the effects of particular courses of action may be 
 
 
 C.  COMPROMISE / STRATEGIC DECISIONS have uncertain outcomes & certain cause / effect relationships 
 
 
 D.  INSPIRATIONAL DECISIONS have uncertain outcomes & uncertain cause / effect relationships 
 
  E.  NON DECISIONS are the choice to make no decision & therefore either let the status quo remain or accept an inexorable change  
         Bacharach & Baratz, 1962, note that a Non decision is in fact a decision   
  There are FOUR types of non decisions  
  Non decisions occur when:   
  i.  a decision has already been made, but the decision making process is followed as though it were not   
Link
 ii.  issues are not allow to surface as matter for decision   
  iii.  there are issues that are believe to be unthinkable in the values of the powerful groups in the org   
  iv.  a decision needs to be made, but no decision is made, thus choosing to maintain the present course of action   
Link
 Decisions can only judged over time & time frames vary depending on the nature of the decision   
Link
 The world is full of classic examples of good & bad decision   

 
Top
  
Figure: The Cause / Effect Relationships & Preferences in Decision Making
   
Preferences Regarding Possible Outcomes
   
CERTAINTY
UNCERTAINTY
Beliefs about
Cause / Effect
Relations
CERTAIN
Routine / Computational
Compromise / Strategic
UNCERTAIN
Judgmental
Inspirational
The Figure: The Cause / Effect Relationships & Preferences in Decision Making, by Thompson, notes that there are FIVE types of decisions including routine / computational, judgmental, compromise / strategic, inspirational, & non decisions 

 
Top
  
Example:  b.  Issues are not allow to surface as matter for decision 

I wouldn't bring that up if I were you, Hickson, 1987 


 
Top
  
Examples of Computational Decisions 

JIT Inventory 


 
Top
  
Examples:  Decisions can only judged over time 

40 yrs. plus of the Russian rule in E. Europe appeared to be successful for many yrs. 
Corp decisions are generally give a 3 to 5 yr. time frame 
Surgeons, police, firefighters & other members of high reliability orgs must make decisions in short time frames that usually have dramatic impacts in a relatively short time frame (seconds to days) 


 
Top
  
Examples:  The world is full of classic examples of good & bad decision 

Ford Edsel & Mustang 
Junk bonds seemed to be a good investment in the 1980s 
The New Coke 


 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the Decision Making Processes
External
Links
  THE STAGES OF THE DEC MKING PROCESS ARE PROBLEM ID & PROBLEM SOLUTIONS   
  Nearly all decision making processes involves TWO major stages:   
  The problem identification stage is where info about the env & org conditions is monitored to determine if performance is satisfactory & to diagnose the cause of shortcoming   
  The problem solution stage is where alternative course of action are considered & one alternative is selected and implemented   
  The problem solution stage involves examining various courses of action & making subsequent decisions about implementation   
  THE LEVELS AT WHICH DEC ARE MADE INCLUDE INDIVIDUAL, GROUP, ORGL, INTER ORGL, & OTHERS   
  There are many kinds of decision making & decision making models   
  The FOUR levels of decision making processes are: 
a.  the individual level,  c.  the organizational level 
b.  the group level,  d.  the inter organizational level 
 
  A.  INDIVIDUAL DEC MKING OCCURS WHEN ONE PERSON IS THE PRIMARY DECIDER, UTILIZING RATIONALITY, ADMIN, OR INTUITION 
 
  Individual decision making processes are those processes in which the individual is the primary actor & decision maker although they may or may not have the resources of an org at their disposal   
  The THREE models of individual decision making include   
  i.  The rational model of decision making, aka the classic model of decision making   
  ( See Also: Bounded rationality & satisificing, which are components  the admin model decision making)   
 
 ii.  The administrative model of decision making by March & Simon   
  iii.  Intuitive decision making   
  B.  GROUP DEC MKING OCCURS WHEN A GRP IS THE PRIMARY DECIDER, W/ ALL THE ADV & DISADV OF GRP PROCESSES   
  Group decision making processes are those processes in which a small group ( 2 to 20 ) is the primary actor & decision maker although they may or may not have the resources of an org at their disposal   
  Many times orgs use small groups to make decisions & usually these small groups are composed of upper level orgl participants but using lower level participants is becoming more common   
  Group decision making is known to have its own unique advantages   
  Group decision making is known to have its own unique disadvantages   
 
 Group decision making is known to have its own unique consequences   
 
 Supervision of group decision making is a special case of supervision   
  The FOUR group decision making processes include   
 
 i.    brainstorming  
 
 ii.  the nominal group technique   
 
 iii.  the delphi technique   
 
 iv.  total quality management  
  C.  ORGL DEC MKING OCCURS WHEN AN ORG IS THE PRIMARY DECIDER, USUALLY EMPLOYING A FORMAL DEC MKING PROCESS   
  Orgl decision making is formally defined as the process of identifying & solving problems   
  Orgs are composed of leaders / mgrs. / administrators / & even lower level employees / participants who make decisions using both rational & intuitive processes, but org level decisions are not usually made by a single person   
  Many org decisions involve several orgl actors   
  Problem identification & problem solution involves many depts., multiple viewpoints, & even other orgs which are beyond the scope of individual   
  D.  INTER ORGL DEC MKING OCCURS WHEN A GRP OF ORGS ARE THE PRIMARY DECIDER, EMPLOYING A FORMAL DEC MKING PROCESS, OFTEN MKING DEC THAT ARE NOT AS BINDING AS OTHER TYPES OF ORGS   
  Inter orgl decisions are often made by a network of orgs & because networks have loose ties, the decisions are often loose, i.e. non binding   
  Inter orgl decisions are the most complex because this is the most complex org structure, & networks of orgs are the largest grps of orgs   
  INTERNAL STRUCTURE & ENV STABILITY AFFECT THE DEC MKING PROCESS   
 
 The processes by which decisions are made in orgs are influenced by a number of factors, including   
 
 - the org's own internal structure   
 
 - the degree of stability or instability of the external env   
 
 Orgl decision making processes include: 
 
 
 - management science approach   
 
 - Carnegie model   
 
 - incremental decision process model   
 
 - the integrated incremental process & Carnegie model   
 
 - garbage can model   
 
 - contingency decision making framework   
 
 - the risk management process   

 
Internal
Links

Top
Outline on  Rationality
External
Links
  -  Project:  What is rational? 
Link
  RATIONALITY IS A MODEL OF CHOICE BASED ON WHO / WHAT WORKS BEST IN ACHIEVING A GIVEN OBJECTIVE   
  A SOCIO HISTL ANALYSIS OF RATIONALITY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE RAT / SCIENTIFIC WAY OF THINKING IS A NEW / MODERN PHENOMENON  
  A form of scholarship known as antiquarianism spread across Europe beginning in the 1500s   
  Antiquarian scholars gathered, preserved, recorded, edited, and cataloged the basic materials for history   
  Examples of antiquarian research   
  Without the research of the antiquarians, the primary sources for many fields of history throughout Europe might have been lost   
  THE ENLIGHTENMENT, AKA THE AGE OF REASON, IS THE LATE MID AGES ERA WHERE RAT / SCIENCE CAME TO THE FOREFRONT, DISPLACING TRADL KNOWLEDGE   
  During the Age of Reason, aka the Enlightenment, which lasted from the late 1600s to the late 1700s, a group of French philosophers called the philosophes became prominent   
  See Also:  The Enlightenment   
  Writers during the Age of Reason preferred to write broad historical narratives to proclaim large scale theories of the progress and decline of civilization   
  In general, the works of the philosophes reflected the respect for rationality, critical thought, secular values, and scholarship that characterized the Age of Reason   
 
 Leading philosophes included the Marquis de Condorcet, Montesquieu, and Voltaire   
 
 The philosophers of the Age of Reason believed that each person has a rational will, which makes it possible to make and carry out plans 
 
  The Enlightenment thinkers declared that animals are slaves of their emotions; when an animal is afraid of something, it tries to escape; when an animal is angry, it fights   
  However for the Enlightenment thinkers, people can figure out the best course of action when they are afraid, angry, or in trouble   
  In addition, people can make themselves do the right thing, instead of doing only what may seem easier or more appealing   
  The Enlightenment thinkers realized that people do not always plan ahead but often act on impulse, which they attributed to inadequate education   
  All people, the Enlightenment thinkers believed, are born with the capacity to reason   
  RENE DESCARTE PHILOSOPHIZED THAT RATIONALITY WAS A NATURAL QUALITY OF HUMAN KIND   
  Descartes wrote that "the power of forming a good judgment and of distinguishing the true from the false, which is properly speaking what is called good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men."   
  Descartes therefore thought that to become rational, a person need only acquire an education that teaches a good method of reasoning  
  JOHN LOCKE PHILOSOPHIZED THAT GOD GAVE US THE CAPACITY FOR RATIONALITY   
  Locke wrote that reason is "the candle of the Lord set up by Himself in men's minds" and "must be our last judge and guide in everything."   
  See Also:  Locke   
  Locke believed reason teaches that people must unite and form a state to protect their "lives and liberty and property."   
  Locke noted that although people must give up some rights when they form a state, they gain more in protection than they lose   
  Locke believed that anyone can reason, providing the capacity is allowed to develop   
  He therefore emphasized the importance of education and insisted on the right of free speech and on toleration for conflicting ideas   
  WEBER HELD RATIONALITY WAS THE CENTRAL & SUPRA POWERFUL FEATURE OF MODERNITY   
 
 Rationalization in Weberian sociology, is the process by which decisions are made on basis of what is expected to work best   
  Weber sees rational authority as displacing charismatic & traditional authority   
  Rationality is inherent in modernization, urbanization, & the Industrial Revolution   
  For Weber, bureaucracy is the primary means by which rationality occurs in modern society   
  Weber's forms of rationality parallel his forms of authority which are based on technical mastery of a area or subject   
  1.  SUBSTANTIVE RAT IS THE DOMINANCE OF NORMS & VALUES IN THE RATIONAL CHOICE OF MEANS TO ENDS   
  Substantive rationality creates the ability to draw on norms & values to motivate people to behave in a rational manner   
  Substantive rationality requires that people strive to master a situation & adapt it to their conscious ends   
Link
 Examples of Substantive Rationality   
  2.  THEORETICAL / INTELLECTUAL RAT IS THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE PEOPLE'S RATL PROBLEM SOLVING CAPACITIES   
  Theoretical rationality is also known as the rational cognitive process   
  Examples of theoretical rationality, which use a mental schema to make a decision, include:   
  -  the scientific method   
  -  risk management process   
  3.  PRACTICAL RAT IS DAY TO DAY RAT AS SEEN IN THE ABILITY TO FIND PRACTICALLY RAT WAYS OF HANDLING MUNDANE SITUATIONS   
  Examples of practical rationality include:   
  -  Pragmatism   
  -  What works best in the short run   
  -  Common sense   
Link
 Examples of Practical Rationality  
  4.  FORMAL RAT IS THE USE OF ORGL STRUCTURES WHICH CONSTRAIN PEOPLE TO ACT IN A RAT MANNER IN THEIR CHOICE OF MEANS TO ENDS   
  Bureaucracy is the primary orgl structure used to implement formal rat   
  Functional, aka formal rationality requires of the subordination of one's mind & self to a thing or mechanical process   
 
 Examples of formal rationality include   
  -  the typical top down bureaucracy today which is the organizational hierarchy as first devised in religion, govt, & then refined in the mideval military   
  -  the division of labor & the assembly line   
  -  Fordism   
 
 -  McDonaldization   
  Weber's thesis is that formal rationality & bureaucracy is the distinctive development in the modern world & displaces both:   
  a.  Charismatic authority   
  b.  Traditional authority   
  For Weber, formal rationality is vastly superior to earlier forms of organization   
  THE FOUR DIMENSIONS OF FORMAL RAT ARE EFFICIENCY, PREDICTABILITY, QUANTITY, & NONHUMAN TECH   
Link
 a.  Efficiency is the search for the best means to the end   
Link
 b.  Predictability is being able to determine future events, thus creating a world of no surprises   
Link
 c.  Quantity is the gaining benefits from the economies of scale, the opposite of which is quality   
Link
 d.  Nonhuman technology is the substitution of machines, computers,  biotech, etc. for human labor   
  There are inherent strengths & weaknesses w/ each form of rationality   
  A common weakness of rationality is called the irrationality of rationality which is the obsession w/ only one form of rationalization   
  As formal rationality develops, it draws less & less upon the other forms of rationality   
  Formal rationality downplays & ignores contributions of the three other forms or rationality   
  Dehumanization & demystification are often associated w/ progress & formal rationality   
  In Weberian Sociology, the process by which tradition, faith, and personal relationship are set aside in the conduct of business, with decisions being made on the basis of what is expected to work best is defined as rationality   
  HYPERRATIONALITY COMBINES EFFICIENCY, PREDICTABILITY, QUANTITY, & NONHUMAN TECH IN A FORMAL RAT PROCESS   
  Ritzer developed the concept of hyperrationality, which is a process that combines all of Weber's forms of rationality   
  There are THREE advantages of hyperrationality   
  a.  Hyperrationality mitigates individual rationalization weakness & emphasizes individual rationalization strengths   
  b.  Hyperrationality combines all forms of rationality to mitigate the weaknesses of each   
  c.  Hyperrationality can emphasize any of the forms of rationality, given the particulars of the situation   
 Link
 Examples of Hyperrationality   
  Weber viewed the development of the modern era as increasingly dominated by the "iron cage of rationality"   
  Weber analyzes the role of professionals in bureaucracy & concludes that they have the best chance of breaking out of the "iron cage of rationality"   

 
Top
  
Examples of Substantive Rationality: 
      Letting your values & goals dictate how you do something 
     Belief in democracy / equality:  involve the whole family in making decisions 
     Belief in patriarchy:  head male makes the decisions 

 
Top
  
Examples of Practical Rationality: 
      How to build a garden shed: 
      Buy the lumber, hand saw it up, nail it up 
      Buy a kit (wood is already cut), buy nail gun & compressor 

 
Top
  
Examples of Efficiency 
A drive through window is a good example of increased efficiency in fast food delivery
Ritzer 0411

 
Top
  
Examples of Predictability 
Example:  Big Mac in NYC is the same as in Paris 
[ standardization ] 
Ritzer 0411
Knowing how many people to put on each shift because of good analysis of demand 

Knowing where a store can profitably exist 


 
Top
  
Examples of the Economies of Scale 
Fast food gives you a healthy portion rather than a unique dining experience 
Ritzer 0411

 
Top
  
Examples of Nonhuman Technologies 

McDonalds' assembly line production w/ detailed instructions for preparing all the food

Ritzer 0411

 
Top
  
Examples of Hyperrationality: 
US & Japanese Auto Industries 
Ritzer 0411
McDonalds is becoming so 
Walmart 
PW

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the Rational / Classic Model of Decision Making
External
Links
  -  Project:  Your Rational Decision 
Link
  THE RATIONAL DECISION MAKING PROCESS IS FORMALIZED & THUS HAS SPECIFIC STEPS   
  The rational approach to decision making stresses the need for systematic analysis followed by choice & implementation in a logical step by step sequence 
 
 
There are TEN steps in the the rational decision making process, including: 
     Problem Identification      Problem Solution 
1.  Monitor the Environment  5.  Develop Alternatives 
2.  Define the Problem  6.  Evaluate Alternatives 
3.  Specify Objective  7.  Choose the Best Alternative 
4.  Diagnose the Problem  8.  Implement the Chosen Alternative 
9.  Monitor / Assess 
10.  Modify / Make a new decision 
 
  THE RAT DEC MODEL HAS FEATURES OF LINEARITY, PARALLELISM, PRESCRIPTIVENESS, & IS PROGRAMMATIC; & ASSUMES INFO, CHOICE & TIME ARE ADEQUATE   
 
 While the steps of the rational model of decision making are presented in a linear fashion, in practice, several iterations usually occur before a decision is made & a program is implemented   
 
 Several has the feature of parallelism in that several of the steps in the rational decision making process may advance at the same time, taking cues & direction from other steps   
  The rational decision making model is prescriptive or procedural in that it describes how people should make decisions   
  The rational decision making process works best w/ programmed decisions & does not work well w/ non programmed decisions   
  THREE assumptions of the rational decision making model are that   
  i.   People have access to all the info they need   
  ii.  People have the ability to choose the best solution   
  iii.  People have time for an orderly, thoughtful process   
 
 1.  MONITOR THE ENV 
 
  The decision maker monitors internal & external environments 
 
  The decision maker should focus on those areas of the env that may cause deviations from planned or acceptable behavior 
 
  The decision maker should talk to colleagues, review finances, performance evaluations, industry indices, competitors, etc. 
 
  A SWOT analysis is a useful tool to monitor the env 
 
  Complex orgs may have sophisticated systems to monitor the env on a local, national, & global scale 
 
  Monitoring the env may be very difficult for the individual or small org 
 
  In envl monitoring, info overload can often be a problem 
 
  2.  DEFINE THE PROBLEM 
 
  The decision maker responds to SWOT by identifying the essential details of the problem 
 
  The "problem" may be a deviation or dysfunction of the org, or it may be an opportunity or new program.... 
 
  In identifying the problem, it is useful to identify where, when, who, how.... 
 
  For a business (utilitarian org), low profits or loss of mkt share are often problems 
 
  For a voluntary org (normative org), loss of funding or grants are ineffectiveness are often the problem 
 
  For a coercive organization, control is often the problem 
 
  3.  SPECIFY OBJECTIVES / DEVELOP CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION   
  The decision maker determines what performance outcomes should be achieved by the decision   
  The decision maker must develop as specific criteria as possible for evaluating alternatives & the final outcomes of the chosen alternative   
  Example:  Specify the amount of market share the org wishes to obtain   
  Example:  Specify the assessment outcomes for a new General Education Curriculum   
  Example:  Specify the amount of new jobs created from an Economic Development Program  
  4.  DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM   
  The decision maker analyzes the cause of the problem or the nature of the opportunity   
  Additional data may be gathered to facilitate the diagnosis   
  Diagnosis enables appropriate action   
  5.  DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS   
  Before the decision maker can move ahead w/ an action plan, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the various options available to achieve the desire objectives, i.e. meet the criteria for evaluation   
  There is always more than one alternative for a given set of objectives   
  When the many govt orgs are developing alternatives, the law requires that they include "no action" as one of the alternatives; i.e. preserve the status quo   
  The decision maker may seek alternatives from other peers, customers, the public, etc.   
  The rational dec mking process is sometimes called the multiple attribute model, because it compares various qualities or attributes of various options or alternatives   
Link
 See the Rat Dec Mking Matrix   
  The Rational Decision Making Matrix demonstrates that to make a rational decision objectives for the decisions are set, various courses of actions, i.e. decision alternatives are mapped out, & then analyzed in light of the objectives   
Link
 See the Rat Dec Mking Weighted Matrix   
  The Rational Decision Making Weighted Matrix demonstrates that to make a rational decision objectives for the decisions are set, various courses of actions, i.e. decision alternatives are mapped out, & then analyzed in light of the objectives then a weight of importance is assigned to each objective & a value is assigned to how each alternative fulfills that objective, yielding a total score for each alt   
  6.  EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES   
  Using the objectives / criteria for evaluation, the decision maker determines the merits, weaknesses, & chance of success of each alternative  
  Evaluation of alternatives may involve such techniques as statistical analysis, judging nominal criteria, personal judgment, etc.  
  7.  CHOOSE THE BEST ALTERNATIVE   
  The decision maker uses the analysis above to select a single alternative that has the best chance for success
 
  Some decision makers will construct an alternative out of various components of all the alternatives & thus make a new alternative  
  8.  IMPLEMENT THE CHOSEN ALTERNATIVE 
 
 
 Using managerial, administrative, & persuasive abilities, the decision maker either implements or has another give directions to ensure that the decision is carried out 
 
  Many decisions fail at the implementation stage because   
  - the decision was not sufficiently planned   
  - the decision was not accepted by the org   
  9.  MONITOR / ASSESS   
  As decisions / programs are implemented, they must be evaluated to determine whether they are achieving their objectives & goals   
  10.  MODIFY / MAKE NEW DECISION   
 
 If the decision / program is not meeting objectives, the decision maker must decide whether to modify implementation or make a new decision w/ an essentially new program   
  The rational model of decision making is unrealistic in suggesting that following these steps will always lead to optimal decision making   
  THE WEAKNESSES OF THE RAT DEC MKING MODEL ARE THAT YOU NEVER HAVE ENOUGH INFO, CANNOT DETERMINE VALUES, & THE SITUATION IS ALWAYS CHANGING, & MORE   
  The model of rational decision making is weak because it wrongly assumes that people:   
  1.  have all the info they need   
  2.  often do not know all the alternatives  
  3.  do not know all the consequences that result from an alternative   
  4.  may not be able to rank the alternative in any meaningful way   
  5.  may see the situation change so rapidly that it is impossible to use the rational model's steps   
  6.  have the time to collect all the info they need   
  7.  the time & cost to collect this info may be greater than any benefit from the decision   
  Problems w/ the rational model stimulated James March & Herbert Simon to develop their administrative model of decision making   

 
Top
  
Rational Decision Making Matrix 
 
Various Goals, Objectives, or Attributes 
Objective 1: 
Objective 2: 
Objective 3: 
Objective 4: 
Various 
Alternative 
Decisions 		 Alternative 
Decision 1: 		        
Alternative 
Decision 2: 		        
Alternative 
Decision 3: 		        
Alternative 
Decision 4: 		        
The Rational Decision Making Matrix demonstrates that to make a rational decision objectives for the decisions are set, various courses of actions, i.e. decision alternatives are mapped out, & then analyzed in light of the objectives 

 
Top
  
Rational Decision Making Weighted Matrix 
 
Various Goals, Objectives, or Attributes 
Objective 1: 
Objective 2: 
Objective 3: 
Objective 4: 
Total 
Score: 
Various 
Alternative 
Decisions 		 Alternative 
Decision 1: 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
  
Alternative 
Decision 2: 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
  
Alternative 
Decision 3: 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
  
Alternative 
Decision 4: 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
Obj Value x Weight = Score 
  
The Rational Decision Making Weighted Matrix demonstrates that to make a rational decision objectives for the decisions are set, various courses of actions, i.e. decision alternatives are mapped out, & then analyzed in light of the objectives then a weight of importance is assigned to each objective & a value is assigned to how each alternative fulfills that objective, yielding a total score for each alt 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 An Overview of  Simon:
Bounded Rationality & Satisficing
External
Links
Link
 -  Bibliography   
  BOUNDED RATIONALITY DENOTES THAT THERE ARE LIMITS TO THE APPLICATION OF RATIONALITY TO ANY DECISION   
  There is a limited amount of rationality available in the decision making process   
  In 1957 Simon developed the important concept of Bounded Rationality which lead to a Nobel Prize in Economics   
  Bounded rationality denotes the inability of any system to provide maximum or even adequate information for decision making & to the inability to process even the available, inadequate info   
  Bounded rationality denotes that the ability to reason is constrained by the limitations of the mind itself & of the ability for people to work together & combine their knowledge in a social, orgl, etc. env   
  The more important the decision, the greater the number of factors affecting the org & the outcomes of the proposed course of action   
  It is often impossible for decision makers to simultaneously consider all the info relevant to a decision & use all this info to make an optimal choice   
  The bounded rationality perspective applies mostly to nonprogram decisions   
  The novel, unclear, complex aspects of nonprogram decisions mean hard data & logical procedures are not available   
  POST MODERNISTS & OTHERS FEAR THE POTENTIAL POWER OF TOTAL RATIONALITY IN DEC MKING   
  The ability to handle multitudinous factors in decision making is still not available today to the degree that those affected by the decision would desire   
  Such an ability to address multitudinous factors would allow the prediction of social / human behavior, thus the desire of the rationalists is to gain this power, & the fear of the post modernists is that fallible, self interested people will gain this power   
  Simon, building on the idea that leaders recognize that they are making decisions based on limited, incomplete info, do not attempt to maximize outcomes   
  For Simon, leaders, decision makers & even orgs attempt to satisfice   
  SATISFICING DENOTES THAT DEC MKERS SHOULD STRIVE TO MAKE A SATISFACTORY DEC, NOT AN OPTIMAL ONE   
  Satisficing is the orchestration of an outcome that is less than perfect but satisfactory given the unknown, dynamic conditions   
  Satisficing is the searching for & choosing acceptable responses to problems & opportunities that are not necessarily the best possible responses   
  When the concept of satisficing replaces the concept of maximizing in econ analysis, the entire predicted behavior based on classical econ / business models changes dramatically   
  THE GARBAGE CAN MODEL DENOTES THAT PEOPLE LOOK PRIMARILY AT STANDARD SOLUTIONS TO ANY PROBLEMS WHICH ARE FOUND IN THE CAN, INSTEAD OF SEEKING NOVEL SOLUTIONS   
  Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972, built on Simon's ideas:  the garbage can model of decision making has been developed in light of bounded rationality & satisficing 
 
  The garbage can model demonstrates that orgs have a repertoire of responses to problems which are located in the org's or individual's garbage can   
  If a problem arises, orgs look in the garbage can for one of their standard responses, & if the response appears to be satisfactory, it is applied to the problem   
  A weakness of this model is that orgs frequently do not recognized a problem that they can deal w/ until it matches one of their standard responses ("a problem looking for a solution")   
  People don't "look outside the box (garbage can)"   
  Masuch & LaPotin, 1989, demonstrate that decision making is a symbol driven search activity; we look for familiar symbols   
  The garbage can approach stresses that we look for the familiar symbols that we have used in the past   
  While there are obviously severe limits on the utilization of rational decision making in orgs, Grandoci, 1984, claims decision makers classify degrees of uncertainty & conflicts of interest of a situation, eliminate strategies that are unfeasible, & select a feasible course of action   
  Nutt, 1984, sees decisions as solution centered, thus restricting innovation & limiting the number of alternative considered   
  But despite the position of those examining the intuitive decision making process & the effect of power on decision making, Levitt & Nuss, 1989, note that there is a "lid on the garbage can," i.e., decision making & access to decision making are constrained by forces in the org's & by institl envs  
  Thus, Simon began an analysis that demonstrates that variance in rationality is the norm in most decision making   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the Orgl Env, Technology & Decision Making
External
Links
  TECH IS UNIQUE IN DEC MKING BECAUSE IT IS HUMAN CREATED, CAN BE TRANSFORMATIVE, OFTEN NOT CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD, & MAY CONTAIN UNKNOWN BENEFITS / COSTS   
  Technology is a basic envl condition for the dev of orgs because to a certain extent tech itself offers limits & opportunities for orgl dev
 
  Orgs operating in an uncertain & dynamic techl env have different structures from those in techly stable envs
 
  To deal w/ orgl uncertainly, orgs often estb separate divisions including R & D, indl engineering, mgt info systems 
 
  Tech is usually something external to an org, i.e. a resource, opportunity, threat, etc. that exists in the orgl env, but some tech orgs have tech as an internal factor over which they have greater control 
 
  Because tech & new ideas are part of the env, & since the sciences have norms of distribution, knowledge & scientific developments take a particular course to become useful to an org 
 
  Tech also exists in the managerial & administrative sciences in the form of the social sciences 
 
  Because orgs do not respond to tech through simple absorption, the control & dissemination of knowledge is a political process operating both in the env as well as in the org 
 
  Orgs have forces for stability & change & thus have their own internal "radical" & "reactionary" responses to tech, knowledge, etc. 
 
  In relation to the interorganizational relationships of orgs (IORs), orgs in highly complex techl envs are known to each other & can rank each other's performance   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the  Administrative Model of Decision Making
by March & Simon
External
Links
  THE ADMIN MODEL OF DEC MKING HOLDS THAT DEC MKRS SEEK TO SATISFICE BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRAINTS ON DEC MKING IN LARGE ORGS   
  The administrative model of decision making holds that actors try to make rational decisions, & thus they do follow the steps of the rational decision making model to a certain degree, but because of constraints (discussed below), actors seek satisfactory outcomes on some of the steps of the rational model rather than optimal outcomes; i.e. actors satisfice   
  While the rational model of decision making is prescriptive (it explains how decision making should be done), the admin model of decision making is descriptive (it explains how people actually make decisions)   
  The model is called admin because it was discovered through the study of administrators   
  The admin model of decision making holds that people respond to a simplified & approximate view of a decision situation   
  The admin model of decision making acknowledges that decision makers try & do follow some of the steps of the rational model   
 
 While people try to use systematic, rational procedures to arrive at good decisions, many factors push actors to used the admin or bounded rationality model of decision making 
 
  The steps of the rational model that people follow depend on their unique definition of the situation which is shaped by the cognitive ability (bounded rationality) of themselves, their group, or their org, by social constraints, by psychological constraints, & by ethical constraints   
 
 BOUNDED RATIONALITY CONSTRAINTS ON DECISION MAKING INCLUDE: TIME, COMPLEXITY, ILL DEFINED PROBLEMS, LIMITED CAPACITY 
 
  Bounded rationality constraints on decision making include:   
 
 - time pressure:  many decisions must be made very quickly & therefore actors do not have time to adequately perform all the steps in the rational model 
 
 
 - the large number of internal & external factors affecting a decision make the situation too complex for the rational model 
 
 
 - that the ill defined nature of many problems makes systematic analysis impossible 
 
 
 - the fact that actors have only so much capacity to study every goal, problem & alternative 
 
  RATIONAL DEC MKRS OFTEN IGNORE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SOCIAL & PSYCL CONSTRAINTS ON DEC MKING   
 
 Social constraints on decision making include: 
 
 
 - the need for acceptance
 
 
 - the need for agreement 
 
 
 - developing a shared perspective 
 
 
 - the ability to cooperate 
 
 
 - the support available for a decision
 
 
 - the orgl culture 
 
 
 - ethical values 
 
 
 Psychological constraints on decision making include: 
 
 
 - the desire for prestige & success 
 
 
 - peoples' personal decision style 
 
 
 - the need to satisfy emotional needs   
 
 - the ability to cope w/ pressure   
  - the need to maintain self concept   
  IT IS DIFFICULT TO MAKE RAT DEC WHEN GOALS ARE AMBIGUOUS OR UNCLEAR   
  Ambiguous / unclear goal constraints on decision making include:   
  The administrative model of decision making emphasizes that decision makers satisfice   
  See an Overview of Simon for more on satisficing   
  Satisficing occurs when people choose satisfactory, rather than optimal, decisions because they are limited by incomplete info, psychological & social process, & their own cognitive abilities   
  ETHICAL CONSTRAINTS ON RAT DEC MKING OFTEN EXPAND THE POOL OF THOSE INVOLVED & AFFECTED BY THE DEC, MKING THE DEC MORE SOCIAL & LESS INDIVIDUAL   
  Ethical constraints on decision making include:   
  -  the fact that decisions can't always be optimal because they must be ethical, promoting the well being of workers & others   
  -  thus the nature of 'the optimal choice' must be considered by asking 'optimal for whom?'.... the owners, the workers, the community, the nation, the world, & various other actors   
  -  the ethical dimension of decision making that enters via the administrative model of decision making & the concept of orgl social responsibility   
  -  the concept of social responsibility denotes that people struggle to meet their own needs, as well as the needs of other actors impacted by the decision   
  -  in most utilitarian orgs, this means that the goals of profits & market share must be considered along side of the goals of the workers, the community, & other actors  
  -  sometimes the line btwn ethical & unethical decisions is not clear   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the  Organized Anarchy
External
Links
  ORGANIZED ANARCHIES ARE ORGANIC IN THAT THEY ARE FLEXIBLE, ADAPTIVE, NONHIERARCHICAL, & DECENTRALIZED   
  Cohen, March & Olsen developed the concepts of the org as an organized anarchy & the garbage can model of decision making   
  The garbage can model of decision making is used, whereby decisions are almost randomly made by matching solutions & problem, because the org is viewed as experiencing extremely high uncertainty 
 
  Organized anarchies are viewed as extremely organic orgs in an env of highly uncertain conditions 
 
  Organic orgs have 
-  a loose, flexible mgt that recognizes the unstable nature of the external env 
-  systems marked by free flowing adaptive processes 
-  an unclear hierarchy of authority 
-  a decentralized decision making process 
 
  Org anarchies do not rely on the normal vertical hierarchy of authority & bureaucratic decision rules 
 
  THE WEAKNESSES OF ORG ANARCHIES ARE THAT THEY HAVE PROBLEMATIC PREFERENCES, TECH PROBLEMS, & HAVE HIGH TURNOVER RATES   
  Orgs morph into organized anarchies when they have problematic preferences, unclear, poorly understood tech, & turnover 
 
  1.  Org anarchies have problematic preferences when goals, problems, & solutions are ill defined & ambiguity characterizes each step of a decision process 
 
  Note that preferences may be clear to one actor or grp while being unclear to another, depending on their power, position, knowledge, experience, etc. 
 
  2.  Org anarchies have unclear, poorly understood tech when cause & effect relationships w/in the org are difficult to identify 
 
  Org anarchies have unclear, poorly understood tech when an explicit data base that applies to decisions is not available 
 
  3.  Org anarchies have turnover when orgl positions experience a high turnover rate, or actors are busy & have only limited time to allocate to a problem 
 
  Org anarchies have turnover when actors commitment & involvement in any given decision are fluid & limited 
 
  Org anarchies are often characterized by: 
- rapid change 
- a collegial env 
- a non bureaucratic env 
- dec mking under problematic circumstances 
 
  Few orgs act as org anarchies all or most of the time, but many orgs experience significant periods of anarchic operation 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the Garbage Can Model of Decision Making
External
Links
  THE GARBAGE CAN MODEL OF DEC MKING HOLDS THAT BOTH PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS ARE IDENTIFIED & MATCHED UP, PRIMARILY IN A RANDOM MANNER   
  Cohen, March & Olsen developed the garbage can model of decision making   
  The garbage can model of decision making (GCM DM) views the org as a garbage can into which problems, solutions, choice opportunities, participants are dumped, & to which the overall pattern of orgl dec mking takes on a random quality as these components are drawn out & utilized 
 
  The GCM DM is often employed in orgs that are characterized as organized anarchies by Cohen, et al   
  See Also:  Organized Anarchy   
  When a problem, solution, & a participant connect at one point, a decision may be made & the problem solved, but if the solution does not fit the solution, then the problem will not be solved 
 
  The GCM DM embodies the orgl maxim of "garbage in, garbage out," what is put into the garbage can, i.e. the org, is everything that is available whether it is valuable, useful or not 
 
  Every problem, every possible solution or idea, chances for decisions, all the orgl actors are mixed in the org in a relatively random manner & then the org more or less matches these components up in a trial & error manner in order to take action 
 
  The GCM DM embodies the orgl maxim of  "give the org a hammer, & everything becomes a nail" in the sense that when a program or idea is viewed as a solution, then it will often be implemented in relationship to all problems, where in some cases it will succeed, while in others, it will not succeed 
 
  THE GCM DM IS MORE LIKELY TO COME TO THE FOREFRONT IN CONDITIONS OF HIGH UNCERTAINTY   
  When in the view the of the org there is a high level of uncertainty, this is where there are problems that are not solved & solutions tried that do not work 
 
  Org dec are disorderly & not the result of a logical, step by step sequence 
 
  Events may be so ill defined & complex that decisions, problems, & solutions act as independent events where if they connect, some problems are solved, but many are not 
 
  While the outcomes of the GCM DM have not been empirically examined, many theorists view them in a less than favorable light 
 
  To view organized anarchies & the GCM DM in a favorable light, one must be aware that frequently these orgs are dealing w/ the most uncertain, volatile, high risk conditions & the more rationalized models of operation are either ineffective or too slow 
 
  Some high reliability orgs (HROs), esp emergency services & the military, operate effectively as org anarchies 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the  Consequences of the Garbage Can Model of Decision Making
External
Links
  The garbage can model of dec mking (GCM DM) is typically employed by organized anarchies or orgs experiencing anarchy 
 
  The GCM DM has FOUR consequences for orgl decision making including solutions for solutions sake, choice making w/o solving problems, persistent problems, & a few problems are solved 
 
  1.  A CONSEQUENCE OF THE GCM DM IS THAT SOLUTIONS MAY BE PROPOSED EVEN WHEN PROBLEMS DO NOT EXIST 
 
  An employer may be sold on an idea, see it as a solution, & try to sell it to the rest of the org 
 
  The proposal of solutions for any problem or for non existent problems represents the phenomenon: "give the org a hammer, & everything becomes a nail"   
  An example of a solution for a non problem is often the implementation of computer systems which are pushed by their advocates in the org, mgt, mfrs, & analysts
 
  As a solution, computers did not solve any problems in their initial application, & some caused more problems 
 
  However, the critics of the GCM DM should realize that new tech often has high start up costs that may accrue over many years 
 
  2.  A CONSEQUENCE OF GCM DM IS THAT CHOICES ARE MADE W/O SOLVING PROBLEMS 
 
  A choice such as creating a new dept may be made w/ the intention of solving a problem, but under conditions of high uncertainty, the choice may be incorrect 
 
  Many choices just seem to happen as seen in the choices that are made when people quit, the budget is cut, or a new policy is issued 
 
  Many lower level employees (LLEs) see choices made & cannot understand the scope or even the existence of the problem 
 
  If mgt does not have a strong info campaign, the LLEs may see all choices as existing in a vacuum, i.e. LLEs are incapable of linking them to any problem or solution; they appear to be change for change's sake 
 
  Many LLEs are socialized to accept the changes handed down by mgt w/ neither any significant input nor w/ any understanding 
 
  The lack of input or understanding by LLEs of choices is problematic in relation to commitment, ability to properly implement, etc. but choices made w/o solving problems is even more problematic when mgt too does not have input & does not understand the nature of the choice 
 
  3.  A CONSEQUENCE OF GCM DM IS THAT PROBLEMS MAY PERSIST W/O BEING SOLVED   
  Orgl actors become accustomed to certain problems & give up trying to solve them   
  Actors may not know how to solve certain problems because the tech is unclear   
  Actors may not know how to solve certain problems because the complexity of the problem is nearly overwhelming   
  Usually problems are not solved because it is cheaper to live w/ the problem or the org simply does not have the money, time, knowledge/skill, or personnel to address the problem   
 Link
 Some problems are not solved because the requirements of another org are unclear as is the case w/ the AAUP & a Canadian University   
  4.  A CONSEQUENCE OF GCM DM IS THAT FEW PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED   
  While in many orgs, overall the decision process does not have a high level of success, often imp problems are solved   
  Solutions do sometimes connect w/ problems & actors so that a good choice is made   
  The org is in a continual race btwn being overcome by problems, as they resolve some of them   
  THE GCM DM COMPARED TO RATIONAL DM SHOWS THAT SOMETIMES IT MAY BE RATIONAL TO TRY ANYTHING   
  Much of what the consequences of the GCM DM implies that dec can be understood as an imperfect implementation of the rat model of dec mking   
  When rationality fails, it is true that people will try almost anything, i.e. dip into the garbage can & see what might work   
  The failure to be able to rationally address a problem, & trying anything solution in sight is represented by the orgl maxim of "do something, even if it is wrong," which is countered by the orgl maxim, "I rather look lazy than stupid"   
  The GCM DM may be a common alt to the rat model that actors turn to when the rat model fails to provide a solution   

 
Top
  
The AAUP & a Canadian University

A Un in Can was placed on probation by the Am Assoc of Un Profs (AAUP) because of a tenure dispute.  The Un admin wanted to remove the probation, but was unclear as to how to do so.  15 yrs. later the prof died.  The probation continued because the Un did not acquiesce to the demands of the AAUP to reevaluate the case.  The Un would like to solve the problem, but the admin is not sure how, & they do not have the resources to allocate to it.  The probation continues.


 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Recognition Primed Decision Making
External
Links
  -  Project:  Your Recognition Primed Decision 
Link
  RPDM IS WHERE THE DEC MKR ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, INTUITIVELY RECOGNIZES THE SOLUTION & THEN RATIONALLY SCANS IT TO DETERMINE IT'S VALIDITY   
 
 Recognition primed decision making (RPDM) is a method of decision making where in the decision maker utilizes a first impression visa vie intuitive or blink decision making, to develop an alternative which is then analyzed to develop the final decision which is implemented 
 
  RPDM was developed by Schmitt & Klein as an alt to the rational model of dec mking by codifying the way dec mkrs actually make decisions   
  The stages of RPDM include the: 
1.  decision necessity stage 
2.  situation awareness stage 
3.  recognition stage 
4.  course of action stage 		 5.  test & operationalization stage 
6.  implementation stage 
7.  evaluation stage 
 
  While the stages of RPDM appear as discreet stages, several of them may occur nearly simultaneously, esp the situation awareness stage, the recognition stage, & the course of action stage   
  1.  THE DECISION NECESSITY STAGE IS WHERE ONE PERCEIVES THE NEED FOR A DECISION, I.E. THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM  
  In the decision necessity stage, the dec mkr perceives that a dec must be made   
  A dec mkr may perceive from the env that a dec must be made, or they may be commanded to make a dec from higher ups in the org   
  The dec mkr tries to understand the mission, or goal of the dec as delineated by superiors while also deciding how to proceed   
  2.  THE SITUATION AWARENESS STAGE IS WHERE ONE PERCEIVES A RAPIDLY CHANGING ENV  
  In the situation awareness stage, the dec mkr experiences the situation as a changing context   
  The situation or context is perceived as either typical or atypical   
  3.  THE RECOGNITION STAGE IS WHERE ONE PERCEIVES A SOLUTION OR SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM   
  Whether the situation is typical or atypical, the dec mkr will either develop a dec or solution that is analogous to a known, similar situation, or develop a new prototypical or solution from a combination of dissimilar situations   
 
 W/ the RPDM model, the decision maker draws upon their experience to identify a situation as representative of or analogous to a particular class of problem 
 
  If an analogous situation cannot be found then the dec mkr either cannot or does not make a dec or they construct a prototypical solution from a combination of situations which they are familiar w/   
  If the situation is perceived as too atypical, a significant amt of analysis might precede any recognition of a course of action (COA) stage   
  The RPDM model does not freeze a dec mking team into a single strategy; rather, it enables the dec mking team to search for options if the situation is so unfamiliar that the dec mkr cannot recognized what to do   
  The recognition of a solution builds on experience & expertise   
  4.  THE COURSE OF ACTION STAGE IS WHERE ONE PERCEIVES EXACTLY WHAT TO DO  
 
 W/  RPDM, the dec mkr's recognition of a situation leads to a course of action (COA) either directly when prior cases are sufficiently similar or by adapting previous approaches
 
 
 The dec mkr then evaluates the COA through a process of "mental simulation" 
 
  A primed COA is a key stage that conceptually differs the most from the rational dec mking model in that the dec is made in an intuitive or blink mode   
 
 Dec mkrs identify their preferred COA so that staff can work on detailing & improving it 
 
 
 Identifying a base COA early can guide mission analysis 
 
 
 If the dec mkr does not identify a base COA, the staff can ask for suggestions 
 
 
 Dec mkrs can choose to do an initial conceptualization  of a COA on their own or w/ a small grp of key subordinates 
 
 
 5.  THE TEST & & OPERATIONALIZATION STAGE IS WHERE ONE PERCEIVES HOW ONE IS GOING TO DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE & POTENTIAL PROBLEMS / OPTIONS 
 
 
 The test & operationalization stage allows the dec mking team to:
- prepare implementation plans 
- find flaws that disqualify the COA
- contrast options 
- imagine consequences 
 
  In the RPDM model, testing & operationalization is not done along a common set of abstract dimensions, but again, in a blink mode of dec mking   
 
 6.  THE IMPLEMENTATION STAGE IS WHERE ONE FOLLOWS THE COA & ADJUST FOR PROBLEMS 
 
 
 Developing implementation plans is often a cut & paste procedure since this work began during the testing & operationalizing  of the COA
 
  7.  THE EVALUATION STAGE IS WHERE ONE PERCEIVES THE SUCCESSES / FAILURES, OPTIONS, PROBLEMS, ETC. OF THE COA  
 
 Killion modified the simple RPDM model to include a stage wherein the COA or COAs can be evaluated & revised during the testing & operationalization stages or during the implementation stages either via a blink methodology or via a rational decision making matrix 
 
  Factors characterizing naturalistic decision making via RPDM include: 
- time pressure or constraints 
- ill structured problems 
- uncertain, or dynamic env 
- shifting, ill defined or competing goals 
- multiple event feedback loops 
- high stakes 
- knowledge rich env 
- high decision complexity 		  
  In general, strategic & operational levels allow more time & have greater resources for mking the dec   
  However, dec mking at the implementation level has less time & fewer resources of mking the dec   
  THE OUTCOMES OF RPDM INCLUDE ATTN TO CUES, A COA, GOAL CHOICE, GRP EXPECTANCIES   
  There are FOUR outcomes of RPDM including:   
  -  attention to relevant cues on which to base the dec   
  -  a practical or typical course of action   
  -  the creation of plausible goals related to the outcome of the course of action   
  -  the generation of expectancies related to the outcome of the course of action   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on a Comparison of Rational Decision Making & Recognition Primed Decision Making 
External
Links
  RDM & RPDM ARE RARELY USED TOGETHER, BUT THEY WOULD COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER BY ADDRESSING EACH OTHERS' WEAKNESSES  
  The strengths of the rational decision making (RDM) model mirror the weaknesses of the recognition primed decision making (RPDM) model, & vice versa 
 
Link
 See the Table on the Strengths & Weaknesses of the RDM & the RPDM Models   
  The Table on the Strengths & Weaknesses of the RDM & the RPDM Models demonstrate that the two models could be used together 
 
  RDM uses various forms of rationality such as strict rat, substantive rat (i.e. value based), or formal rat (i.e. bureaucratic based) 
 
  See Also:  Rationality 
 
  RPDM uses analogical thinking 
 
  RPDM build on practical experience & practical expertise while RDM builds on analytical or scholarly experience & analytical expertise 
 
  RDM uses analytical procedures which can prevent or hamper an experienced dec mkr from using their ability to quickly assess a situation 
 
  Time pressure degrades the RDM process while the RPDM can be nearly instantaneous 
 
  RDM is rarely fully implemented in the field whereas the RPDM describes a natural strategy that is usually fully implemented 
 
  RPDM truncates the fifth stage of the RDM, the choice of alternatives 
 
  RPDM truncates the sixth stage of the RDM, the evaluation of all the alternatives 
 
  RDM & RPDM UTILIZE THE SIMILAR PROCESSES OF ENVL SCANNING & SITUATION AWARENESS   
  RDM utilizes utilizes rigorous envl scanning & monitoring techniques to gather all relevant info, while RPDM utilizes situation awareness techniques that focus on the immediate surveillance of the env based on a nearly intuitive search for cues   
  One of the major differences in the technique used by RDM & RPDM in the choice of alts & the eval of alts is that RDM utilizes simultaneous & multiple generation & eval of options while RPDM utilizes serial generation & eval  
  The aim of RDM is to find an optimal solution, though some have modified it to find a satisfactory solution   
  The aim of RPDM is to find a satisfactory solution & their is no presumption of optimization   
  RDM utilizes a rigorous analytical method to generate & eval alts while RPDM utilizes mental simulation, or gaming   
 
 For Killion, RDM & RPDM are both desirable, & complementary   
  For Killion, dec mkrs employ RDM & RPDM at different times, for different problem situations, depending on their level of experience, & other factors   
  In general strategic & operational level dec utilize RDM while implementation level dec utilize RPDM  

 
Top
  
Table on the Strengths & Weaknesses of RDM & RPDM 
 
Rational Decision Making 
Recognition Primed Decision Making 
Strengths  Systematic procedures  Leverages expertise & experience 
In depth course of action assessment  Decision maker centered 
Detailed comparison of alternatives  Rapid response 
Addresses complex issues  Minimal resources are required 
     
Weaknesses  Limited utilization of expertise & experience  Limited analysis of the options, if any 
"Garbage in - garbage out" problem  Shallow assessment of the options 
Dependent on the accuracy of scores & weights  Potential "garden path" problem 
Resource intensive  Limited number of alternatives considered 
Slow  Cannot address complex issues 
The Table on the Strengths & Weaknesses of the RDM & the RPDM demonstrate that the two models could be used together

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Intuitive Decision Making
External
Links
 
 IN INTUITIVE DECISION MKING, EXPERIENCE & JUDGMENT RATHER THAN SEQUENTIAL LOGIC OR EXPLICIT REASONS ARE USED TO MAKE DECISIONS   
 
 Because of the conception of bounded rationality, decision makers recognize that at least in part all decisions are based on intuition:  "gut feeling," "seat of the pants," etc.   
 
 Because people find it very difficult to use the rational approach for non programmed decision, intuitive decision making is often very valuable, & widely applied 
 
 
 Alexander, 1979, concludes that many decisions in orgs are made informally & intuitively, before the evaluation of the consequences are made 
 
  Decision makers make their decision & then develop rational sounding reasons for the decision, after the fact 
 
 
 Intuition is not arbitrary or irrational because it is based on years of practice & hands on experience, often stored in the subconscious 
 
 
 Experience w/ org issues provides gut feelings or hunches about which alternatives will solve a problem or exploit an opportunity 
 
 
 WHEN THERE IS COMPLEXITY OR AMBIGUITY, PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE & JUDGMENT ARE NEEDED TO INCORPORATE INTANGIBLE ELEMENTS 
 
 
 The intuitive process may assist both the problem identification & problem solving stages 
 
 
 A recent study in a major corporation demonstrated that 30 of 35 problems were ambiguous & ill defined 
 
 
 Bits of unrelated info from informal sources resulted in a pattern in the problem solver's mind
 
 
 The problem solver could not "prove" a problem existed but knew intuitively that a certain area needed attention 
 
 
 Too simple of a view of a complex problem is associated w/ decision failure 
 
 
 Intuitive processes are also used in the problem solution stage 
 
  INTANGIBLE FACTORS SUCH AS SOCIAL ATTITUDES, OR SIMPLY UNKNOWN VARIABLES ARE NOT CONSIDERED BY RAT DEC MKING, BUT SUPPOSEDLY ARE CONSIDERED BY INTUITION   
 
 Intangible factors influence the selection of the best alternative which cannot be quantified, therefore intuition guides the choice 
 
 
 Intangible factors that influence intuitive decision making include a concern about: 
 
 
 - ostracism from other people 
 
 
 - a fear of failure 
 
 
 - social attitudes 
 
  - lack of material support   
 
 Decision makers often make a decision based upon what they believe to be right, rather than upon what they can document w/ hard data 
 
Link
 Example of intuitive decision making 
 

 
Top
  
Examples of Intuitive Decision Making 

Example of Intuitive Decision Making:  IDS 
IDS Financial Services was very profitable & grew rapidly 
A mgr. perceived that a high employee turn over rate was a weakness that could threaten IDS 
He was right, & his solution strengthened the firm while others failed 

Example of Intuitive Decision Making:  Star Wars 
Market Researchers told director George Lucas that the title Star Wars would turn people away. 
Lucas's experience told him differently 

Example of Intuitive Decision Making:  McDonalds 
Restaurant experts told Ray Kroc that $2.7 was too much for the original McDonalds 
Kroc's intuition told him differently

Example of Intuitive Decision Making:  Michael Eisner & Paramount Pictures 
Eisner would sit in on showings of his films & let his experience tell him how popular the film was 


 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the Role of Information in Decision Making
External
Links
  INFO IS THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCK OF ANY DECISION, BUT INFO IS USUALLY INCOMPLETE & / DISTORTED   
  Info is an integral component in the communications process   
  There is significant info search & discussion in decision making   
  The amount & kind of info in decision making determines the certainty in the cause & effect relationships   
  Thus the more info, the easier the decision, until info overload complicates the decision   
 
 Whatever happens inside or outside an org is shaped by the perceptions & interpretation of decision makers & other members in the org 
 
 
 Thus the same info / conditions can be viewed differently by different people 
 
  One trend in member's orgl perception is that they are more likely to see threats than opportunities (Jackson & Dutton, 1988)   
  BECAUSE OF INFO OVERLOAD, PART OF THE DEC MKING PROCESS IS ALWAYS ONE OF WINNOWING INFO   
 
 In the post industrial era, info overload is the normal situation for most middle & upper level decisions 
 
 
 There is no perfect communication; there is always a withholding, expansion or distortion 
 
 
 Orgs scan different environments in different fashions & therefore the info they receive varies widely from situation to situation 
 
 
 Orgs usually use as much info as they can from outside the org, but they often cease this process when operating in other countries (Keegan, 1974) where info scanning turns inside the org, while missing much on the outside 
 
 
 In some areas of knowledge, certainty about cause & effect is well developed, while in other areas, knowledge is probabilistic at best 
 
 
 Complete knowledge is undoubtedly rare 
 
  IN DECISIONS WHERE IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT INFO IS INCOMPLETE, JUDGMENTAL STRATEGIES MUST BE USED   
 
 Thompson notes that is orgs working at the frontiers of knowledge (i.e. aerospace, medical, etc.), imperfections & gaps in knowledge lead to the use of judgmental strategy, even though as many variables as possible are controlled 
 
  Miles, Snow, & Pfeffer, 1974, demonstrate that decision makers take FOUR stances in their perceptions including the:   
  a. domain defenders, who attempt to allow little change to occur   
  b. reluctant reactors, who react to pressures   
  c. anxious analyzers, who perceive change but wait for competing orgs to develop responses & then develop responses & then adapt to them   
  d. enthusiastic prospectors, who perceive opportunities & want to create change & to experiment   
Link
 Knowledge about cause & effect is weakened when elements of the process are beyond the org's control 
 
 
 The nature of cause & effect is actually certain in only a few cases 
 
Link
 Cause & effect knowledge is heavily affected by the belief or truth system that is prevalent in the org 
 
 
 While the basic knowledge remains the same, the belief system which surrounds it will impact the outcome 
 

 
Top
  
Example: Knowledge about cause & effect is weakened when elements of the process are beyond the org's control & the judgmental strategy is used 

Welfare programs are affect by the nature of the people being served 
& the support or lack of support of the wider community 
Competition w/ another org over which the 1st org has little knowledge, or control 


 
Top
  
Example:  Cause & effect knowledge is affected by the belief or truth system that is prevalent in the org 

The welfare system has two different alternative truth systems, 
which can lead to different interpretations 
On the one hand, those of welfare are there through their own fault
or that conditions exists because of societal imperfections 
Which ever one of these truth systems dominates serves as the mechanism by which info is interpreted on a cause & effect basis leading to different kinds of perceptions, & decisions 


 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Organizational Power 
External
Links
  -  Project:  Power & Orgl Power in Your Org 
Link
  ORGL POWER IS THAT POWER EXERTED BY MEMBERS W/IN AN ORG & BY THE ORG OVER OTHERS   
  Orgl power is power that is circumscribed by the rules & culture of an org, which is the ability to affect the actions of people & grps w/in the org as well as to control the org to such an extent that it may be directed to affect the actions of people, grps, & orgs outside the org   
  All power has both individual & orgl aspects which cannot be separated in practice 
 
  Power in formal orgs is usually influence power 
 
  Influence is the the authority that is accepted as a decision is made, usually in a formal orgl setting   
  While influence is the primary form of power that is used in decision making in orgs, the other forms of power, e.g. authority, political pwr, coercions, control of info, econ pwr, are also used   
  Influence is the primary form of power utilized in an org, & in a rational org it should be the primary form of power utilized because it is power used, contained w/in the proper orgl context of actors, rules, env, etc.   
  Influence is not the only form of power utilized in orgs because even in the most rationalized orgs, the maximization or rationality is not possible because there are always unknown factors in decisions per bounded rationality   
  See Also:  Rationality   
  See Also:  Decision Making   
  THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ORGL POWER INCLUDE THAT  IT: 
         1.  HAS A BASIS IN RATIONALITY, TRADITION/AUTHORITY OR CHARISMA 
         2.  IS AFFECTED BY INTERNAL FACTORS:  STRUCTURE, CULTURE, ECON POWER, ETC
         3.  IS AFFECTED BY  EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE IN THE ORG'S CONTROL 
         4.  HAS ORIGINS WHICH IMPACT POWER'S LONGEVITY
         5.  USUALLY HAS THE CHARACTERISTIC OF OLIGARCHY:  IE A CABAL OR GRP OF POWER HOLDERS 		  
  1.  IDEALLY ORGL POWER IS BASED IN RATIONALITY, BUT IN PRACTICE ALL FORMS OF POWER COME INTO PLAY IN ORGS, EG:  TRADITION/AUTHORITY & CHARISMA  
  Because of the orgl factors that lie outside of rat dec mking, i.e. the context of bounded rat, some part of the decision, some part of the power utilized may be based on authority, politics, coercion, control of info, econ pwr, & not exclusively on the factors influencing the decision / use of pwr  
  Individuals acquire power both from their own unique attributes( charisma, tradition, knowledge, etc.), & also from their organizational attributes (  authority, organizational resources, etc.)   
  Analysts look not only at individual power, but also at the power that comes in the positions & roles that people fill in orgs 
 
  Interdepartmental power is primary which is to say that important power laden conflict often exist btwn depts 
 
  Power is an act btwn people: most often from different departments 
 
  Power is used to signify power: increase awareness of others of ones power 
 
  The point of view of the one who is being affected by power is crucial in determining if a power play has occurred 
 
  If the one affected believes a power play has occurred, then it has 
 
  Organizational power varies according to internal & external factors 
 
 
 2.  ORGL POWER IS AFFECTED BY MANY INTERNAL FACTORS OF THE ORG INCLUDING STRUCTURE, CULTURE, ECON POWER, ETC.
 
  An internal orgl power base consists of the EIGHT resources held that permit the exercise of power, including 
1.  the ability to reward 
2.  coercion 
3.  legitimacy 
4.  expertise, knowledge, or info 		 5.  referent for power recipient 
6.  office or structural position (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980) 
7.  personal characteristics such as charisma 
8.  opportunity, etc. 
 
  Depts capable of dealing w/ uncertainty have more power 
 
  Depts w/ nonsubstitutible resources such as irreplaceable skills which are central to the work flow have more power 
 
  Thus power shifts depending on how well depts & individuals cope w/ the demands of the env 
 
  In uncertain situations, or situations where nonsubstitutible resources come into play, the established horizontal hierarchy & degree of centralization is often ignored 
 
  But the vertical hierarchy is often still as important as it was where power is concerned 
 
  In extreme situations, even the vertical hierarchy may come into play where power is concerned 
 
  Wamsley (1970) holds that organizational power is variable because of SIX factors, including that power 
a.  varies by hierarchic level 
b.  is situationally specific 
c.  is surrounded by checks & balances 
d.  makes one interdependent 
e.  players may utilize negotiation & persuasion 
f.  varies as coalitions change 
 
 
 3.  EXTERNAL FACTORS WHICH AFFECT ORGL POWER MAY BE TOTALLY OUT OF THE CONTROL OF THE ORG, OR THEY MAY BE PARTIALLY CONTROLLABLE
 
  A network creates power for an org   
  See Also:  A Network is an association of similar orgs, including but not limited to 
    Suppliers 
    Users of output 
    Regulatory agencies 
    Similar orgs 		  
  TWO General External Economic Conditions impact an org's power 
- On the Demand Side, the products' markets & price are the most important 
- On the Supply Side, price & source of material & labor are the most important 		  
  Secondary General External Economic Conditions also influence an org's power 
a.  interest rates 
b.  amount of debt holdings by the govt, corps, consumers, etc. 
c.  vitality of the stock market, etc. 		  
  Working together (cooperation) increases power for all   
  Amount of power increases w/ a joint cooperative agreement   
  Lammers, 1967, found that in a joint project, managers & workers influence each other more effectively & create joint power & are more effective   
  Factors Causing Power to Vary in Orgs:   
  Power does not generally vary dramatically from situation to situation & at any one point in time, the amount of power is fixed:  zero sum game   
  But power may change radically over time   
  Power levels changes in orgs through external & internal changes   
  The external expansion of power into org's env   
  The internal expansion of power through changed structural conditions expediting interaction & influence among all & motivational conditions result in increased interest by all & greater willingness to be controlled   
  External development affects social & psychological process w/in the org conducive to a high level of internal control   
  External & internal power are mutually supporting:   
  As external power increases, org members are more willing to submit to internal power   
  4.  THE ORIGINS OF POWER OFTEN AFFECT WHETHER IT WILL BE LONG LASTING OR NOT   
  Some depts are delegated important task in first place & these types of moves are often a power play to begin w/   
  Once a dept gains power, it tries very hard to keep power   
  Powerful depts receive more resources:  the rich get richer & poor get poorer, maintaining the incumbency of power   
  The power distribution impacts the distribution of resources e.g., rewards, budgets, etc.  
  The reverse is also true, the distribution of resources impacts the power distribution   
  Power's distribution, effect etc., in voluntary orgs is in some ways the same & in some ways different   
  Volunteer orgs need volunteer members participation   
  The importance of democratic process increases in voluntary orgs because members & voluntary & expect more participation   
  The democratic form of power tends to increase continued participation   
  Volunteer orgs need increased permeability to new ideas & interests if democracy is to be maintained   
  5.  OLIGARCHY IS THE POWER OF A SMALL, CLOSED, NETWORK OF PEOPLE, I.E. A DOMINANT COALITION, WHO COOPERATE TO CONTROL AN ORG   
  Thus prevention of oligarchy is especially important in volunteer orgs   
  Michels developed the Iron Law of Oligarchy which demonstrates that oligarchic power emerges & is maintained through FIVE processes, including 
 
  a.   the delegation of authority or tasks   
  b.   those in power having access to resources ( info, $$, etc.) that those in power do not have   
  c.   those in power having both legitimacy & a sense of obligation of the followers   
  d.   incumbency   
  e.   human "self interest:"  once power emerges, people & organizations seek to preserve & then expand it   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Power & Decision Making
External
Links
  THE EXERCISE OF POWER IS IMPORTANT IN DEC MKING FOR BOTH AUTHORITARIAN ORGS WHO CENTRALIZE PWR, AS WELL AS DEMO ORGS WHO SHARE PWR  
  The exercise of power is an important component of decision making   
  Power is structured into most orgs in that most orgs have an authoritarian structure where the top level mgr holds all the power, & merely delegates power to subordinates   
  While some independence of power / action does exist even in these authoritarian orgs, subordinates are frequently unwilling to oppose the top level mgr. because they are hired, fired, & evaluated by the top & because of the coalitions that are formed at the top of most orgs   
  People are typically reluctant to oppose the leader, the coalition at the top of an org, or even their supervisor   
  The purpose of bureaucracy is to "rationalize power," i.e. make power into authority which is subject to the limitations of the merit system, rules etc.   
  In practice, because of the intricacies of most orgs, leaders & other power wielders find it possible to exercise power, ignore merit, bend rules, etc.   
  INTEREST GRPS W/ VARIED IDEOLOGIES & VALUES, ETC. COMPETE W/ POWER OVER PARTICULAR DECISIONS   
  Ideologies & values commonly enter the decision making process (Beyer, 1981)   
  Hage, 1980, Bacharach & Lawler, 1980, note that decisions are made by coalitions of interest groups   
  Interest group interests may or may not coincide w/ the interests of the org   
  Interest group interests &  the interests of the org may or may not coincide w/ those not in power   
  Milgrom & Roberts, 1988, conclude that those in power have an economic incentive to manipulate info to influence the decisions they favor   
  WHEN CONFLICT IS HI OR CONDITIONS ARE DIFFICULT, POWER RATHER THAN RAT DEC MKING PROCESS WILL DOMINATE THE DECISION   
  Hills & Mahoney, 1978, found that under adversity, decisions are shaped by power rather than by bureaucratic considerations   
  In times of affluence, a bureaucratic approach is acceptable, but in times of adversity, power is more likely to come into play   
  Pfeffer, Salancik, & Leblebici, 1978, found that social influence & familiarity were more important during adverse times   
  While most strategic decisions are made at the top of the org, at times subordinates are brought into the process   
  Participation by subordinates has mixed consequences for the org in decision making   
  Alutto & Belasco, 1972, show that participation is dysfunctional if participants feel satisfied or saturated w/ their role in decision making   
  If orgl actors feel deprived before the decision, participation will increase involvement & acceptance of the decision   
  Heller, 1973, says that if a decision is important for the org, a non participative style is likely to be used   
  If a decision is important for the subordinates, a participative style should be taken   
  Withen notes in his study of wildland fire fighters, that subordinates offer innovative ideas, processes, etc. & thus have an important strategic impact on the org, whether the leaders recognize it or not   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Strategic Decisions
External
Links
  STRATEGIC DECISIONS ARE THOSE DECISIONS WHICH AFFECT THE ENTIRE ORG & ARE HIGH RISK OR INNOVATIVE   
  Hickson, 1987 & Heller, 1988 define strategic decisions as those made at the top of the org 
 
  Strategic decisions usually are concerned w/ strategic processes, org structure, & personnel; i.e. strategic decisions impact all or nearly all parts of the org 
 
Link
 Example of strategic decisions 
 
  Weick, 1976, characterizes strategic decisions making as an "uncharacteristic soccer match" 
 
  Most middle & lower level mgt. decisions deal w/ routine, typical situations   
 
 Most top level mgt. decisions deal w/ non routine, anomalous, unusual situations 
 
 
 Thus, strategic decisions deal w/ the most unusual situations in the org 
 
 
 Strategic decisions often deal w/ "new" or novel situations, programs, etc. 
 
  The purpose of a strategic decision is to formulate a strategy which is the current set of plans, decision, & objectives that are adopted to achieve the org's goals   
  THE ORG'S MISSION STATEMENT & GOALS SET THE FRAMEWORK FOR STRAT DECISIONS   
  Strategy formulation includes establishment of the mission statement, overall goals, & the strategic plan which contains plans for implementation   
  A firm might adopt a strategy of differentiation, low cost leadership, focus, etc.   
  Strategy implementation is the use of managerial & orgl tools to direct & allocate resources to accomplish objectives   
  The direction & allocation of resources are accomplished w/ the tools of org structure, control systems, culture, technology, & human resources   

 
Top
  
Examples of Strategic Decisions 

New Markets 
Development of new services or products 
Starting new programs
Closing existing programs 
Braking new ground in terms of personnel, priorities, programs, & initiatives 


 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the Organizational Goals & Decision Making
External
Links
  PROBLEMS W/ GOALS OFTEN CREATES PROBLEMS W/ DECISIONS   
 
 There may be a problem w/ goals & decisions along several dimensions including ill defined goals, unclear goals, lack of consensus on goals, overly complicated goals, & contradictory goals   
  Outcomes preferences or goals are a major issue in which power is exercised over & over, & thus conflicts repeatedly occur, inevitably affecting decisions 
 
  Pinford, 1986, notes TWO kinds of decision making including programmed & unstructured decisions 
 
  Programmed, or structured, decision making occurs only when there is agreement on goals 
 
  Problems arise in structured / programmed decision making when participants or the env change leads to a failure of agreement on goals or when these types of dec are made w/o agreement on goals 
 
  GOALS ARE SOMETIMES NON EXISTENT, ILL DEFINED, UNCLEAR, COMPLICATED, CONTRADICTORY, WEAK, WRONG FOR THE ORG, ETC.   
  Anarchic decision making occurs when there is no agreement on goals 
 
  Thus both rationality & power are variables which affect decision making in the determination of goals... & other components in the decision making process   
  Ill defined goals create problematic decisions because goals are used to set the objectives for a decision, & w/o goals & objectives, the dec mking process & dec itself will be likely to fail 
 
  Ill defined goals may be the result of simple lack of definition or by a failure to communicate the goals clearly to the dec mkr
 
  Unclear goals are goals that are well defined, but have not been communicated to the dec mkr
 
  A lack of consensus on goals occurs when either goals setters or dec mkrs, or both, do not agree on the goals 
 
  A lack of consensus on goals can cause several problems including unclear goals, conflicting goals, dec that contradict the goals, dec that are counterproductive, & more 
 
  Overly complicated goals are those that are simply too large or encompassing for a given situation, implying that they should be determined or implemented at another level of the org, or subdivided among several depts of the org 
 
  Contradictory goals occur when a dec mking unit is responsible for contradictory goals from several depts or when orgs have contradictory goals originating from strategic, middle, or lower levels of the org 
 
  Many orgs have "classic contradictory goals" such as safety & efficiency, quality & quantity,  or innovation & stable levels of production 
 
  Contradictory goals may lead to bad decisions when a dec mkr follows one set of goals, while the other set is ignored such as when efficiency is pursued in an unsafe manner 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Escalating & Cascading Situations
External
Links
  ESCALATION OCCURS IN DEC MKING WHEN COMMITMENT, RESOURCES, TIME, & OUTCOMES BECOME INCREASINGLY LINKED TO THE DECISION   
  Escalating situations occur when people become ever more committed to a course of action, whether that course is a losing or winning situation (Straw & Ross, 1989) 
 
  Escalation situations occur in FOUR situations when: 
 
  - orgl projects have little salvage value 
 
  - decision makers want to justify their own past behavior 
 
  - people in a project are bound to each other 
 
  - occurs when orgl inertia & internal politics combine to prevent a project from being shut down 
 
  In order to avoid the pitfalls of escalation, many orgs will set up subsidiary orgs to try out new projects 
 
  Pilot projects, or pilot orgs, are subsidiary orgs whose purpose is to try out new projects 
 
  Pilot projects generally have clearly defined "sundowns" or dates by which judgments will be made about the success or failure of the project 
 
  Escalating situations are similar to, but not the same as cascading situations 
 
  CASCADING SITUATIONS OCCUR IN DEC MKING WHEN ONE DEC OUTCOME CREATES A NEW SITUATION(S) WHERE MORE DECISIONS ARE NEEDED OR WHERE OUTCOMES ARE ALREADY A FOREGONE CONCLUSION   
  Cascading situations occur when mechanical or automatic systems function to increase the power or commitment to a course of action 
 
  In most cases, cascading situations do not require any increase commitment, but rather are the result of standard operating procedures, or what seems to be at the time, the only course of action 
 
  The most frequent type of cascading situation is the cascading error, where one mistake or malfunction leads to another 
 
  Cascading situations are the classic case of falling dominoes  
  An example of a cascading error is when a fire in a power plant or airliner begins to burn wiring which is necessary for the computer control of the system 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on Ethical Decision Making: Boundary Dilemmas
External
Links
  TO MAKE ETHICAL DECISIONS, KNOW YOUR VALUES, GOALS, ALTERNATIVES, INFO, OUTCOMES, & ACTIONS   
  Because the future is unpredictable, there is no such thing as a perfect choice 
 
  Some options are better than others & finding the right choice for each situation can make life less stressful & more successful 
 
  In relation to ethics & boundaries, essentials factors in decision making include: 
 
  1.  knowing your values 
 
  2.  establishing your goals 
 
  3.  expanding your alternatives 
 
  4.  seeking info on each alternative 
 
  5.  predicting outcomes for the alternative 
 
  6.  taking action 
 
  The values one chooses depend upon the situation one faces 
 
  Values should be the things important to the person, not those important to significant others 
 
  When estbing values, one must be honest w/ oneself 
 
  Evaluate goals according to how it satisfies values 
 
  Good decisions move one closer to their goals 
 
  Short term goals should lead toward long term goals   
  Alternatives developed to address problems/ goals are the heart of the decision making process   
  The more alts developed w/ which to address problems, the better the chances of making a good & ethical decision   
  Identify the factors in a situation & devise alts to address each of the factors   
  Collect as much info about each alt   
  Keep an open mind as info is gathered & note that other alts may develop   
  Info sources often lead to other sources   
  The more facts, the better the chances of being aware of all the alts   
  In relation to dec mking, the more facts the better, so don't make assumptions   
  Separate facts from opinion by being a critical listener   
  In dec mking, in choosing an alt, there is no perfect alt, so settle for the best choice   
  Predict outcomes for the various alts, considering the desirability, probability & weaknesses of each alt  
  Consider each alt before narrowing the list   
  In dec mking, any choice is risky & the future is unpredictable   
  In dec mking, involve the emotional, intuitive, imaginative right side of your being   
  After the choice of the best alt, for a plan of action & prepare to see that choice through to the end   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the  Options for Dealing w/ Unethical Behavior 
External
Links
  -  Project:  Options for Dealing w/ Unethical Behavior 
Link
  THE OPTIONS FOR DEALING W/ UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR INCLUDE: 
1.  DON'T THINK ABOUT IT 
2.  GO ALONG & GET ALONG 
3.  PROTEST 
4.  CONSCIENTIOUSLY OBJECT 
5.  LEAVE 		 6.  SECRETLY BLOW THE  WHISTLE 
7.  PUBLICLY BLOW THE WHISTLE 
8.  SECRETLY THREATEN TO BLOW THE WHISTLE 
9.  SABOTAGE 
10.  NEGOTIATE & BUILD CONSENSUS FOR CHANGE 
 
  In 1985 there were over 1300 scholastic articles in print in the area of ethics in administration, mgt, business & public admin, business etc., focusing on what was ethical or unethical in typical business practices 
 
  Richard Nielson (1987) focuses on what people in orgs can actually do when they believe behaviors / practices are unethical 
 
  While it is important to know what is or is not ethical, it is just as important to know what to do when confronted w/ unethical behavior 
 
  1.  DON'T THINK ABOUT IT 
 
  Not thinking about unethical beh avoids a zero sum game btwn superiors & peers 
 
  Not thinking about, not engaging in a zero sum game avoids getting into the situation where someone has to win & someone has to lose 
 
  Not thinking about one path of action makes one more susceptible to go down the wrong path, strategically or otherwise 
 
  One risks becoming similar to the good Nazi as one tries to make the best of a bad situation, but participating in the evil policy / practices 
 
  The bad Nazi may be kind, even reluctant, but ultimately they are involved in evil policy / practices   
  The ability of people to compartmentalize, to not think about what is going on, questions the validity of assuming that all mgrs naturally understand what is right or wrong; there are powerful pressures to obey orders & not think about what is going on   
  2.  GO ALONG & GET ALONG 
 
  Going along has the same advantage as not thinking about unethical behavior:  one avoids the situation where someone has to win & someone has to lose 
 
  Going along means that one must think about the unethical beh at least for a while 
 
  Thinking about & going along unethical beh has the quality of an injury or illness as it slowly bleeds the individual conscience or as guilt consumes one like a cancer 
 
  Under constant pressure, mgrs & wkrs simply give in & become good 'organization people' 
 
  Conforming might affect areas of dec mking & action unrelated to the unethical beh as it reigns in thinking, initiative, enthusiasm, etc. & deprive mgrs & wkrs of info   
  3.  PROTEST   
  An advantage of protesting is that one can feel good about making an effort to stop the unethical beh  
  The disadvantage of protesting is that the org can usually disregard objections & punish those who objected   
  4.  CONSCIENTIOUSLY OBJECT 
 
  Conscientiously objecting to unethical beh means that one refuses to participate in it in any shape, manner, or form   
  Conscientiously objecting makes a clear statement to the org that at least one person considers the beh unethical & refuses to participate in it   
  Like protesting, conscientiously objecting makes one feel good about oneself as one stands up for what they believe   
  Consc obj may encourage others by example   
  If the org recognizes the right to consc obj, then one may also be able to keep one's job   
  Because very few orgs recognize the right to consc obj, one is likely to lose one's job, & thus the org loses an important voice against the unethical beh  
 
 By protesting or consc objecting one often loses the ability to advance   
  5.  LEAVE   
  Leaving gives a signal that it will lose good people if it continues unethical beh  
  If we leave & work for a competitor we help a more ethical org gain mkt share  
  We feel better because we had the courage not to cooperate w/ unethical beh  
  The disadvantage of leaving is that most wkrs are very replaceable & so the org loses an ethical voice when we leave  
  If the situation was a zero sum game, then mgt might see wkrs / mgrs leaving as a victory; the opposition has retreated / surrendered   
  If we leave & someone else cooperates, we have only helped ourselves   
  The example one sets is that if one encounters unethical beh & leaves, that is the only / best option   
  Leaving sets up the 'love it or leave it' mentality in the org   
  At some point we may realize that we did not have the courage to stay & fight   
  "The courage to be is the ethical act in which man affirms his own being in spite of those elements of existence which conflict w/ his essential self affirmation" 
Tillich, 1952
 
 
 Leaving cuts off dialogue & thus the org & even the person loses the chance to learn more about the situation   
  There are limits to dialogue in a zero or negative sum game in that everything one says can be used against one if people are not interested in transforming the situation into a positive sum situation   
  Dialogue has little utility unless one is solely focused on the phil / spiritual transformation that can be a part of peacemaking as an end in itself (Brinton, 1973; Buber, 1965)  
  6.  SECRETLY BLOW THE  WHISTLE   
  Blowing the whistle can be very effective if the org is likely to react to publicity, public pressure, govt intervention, profl accreditation orgs, the courts, etc. 
 
  An advantage of blowing the whistle is that the whistle blower cannot be retaliated against   
  A disadvantage of blowing the whistle is that one might feel dishonest, cowardly, traitorous, paranoid of being caught, etc.   
  Secretly blowing the whistle can create an atmosphere of distrust in the org & create a 'witch hunt' mentality w/in the org   
  Because many orgs investigate leaks, the secret whistle blower may have to face additional ethical questions bout whether to tell the truth in the leak investigation   
  If the secret whistle blower is discovered, they may be fired, or they may find it difficult to be trusted by other mgrs, wkrs, clients, etc.   
  7.  PUBLICLY BLOW THE  WHISTLE   
  Publicly blowing the whistle can be just as effective as secretly blowing the whistle  
  People who publicly blow the whistle are often treated both as heroes as well as pariahs  
  The major disadvantage of publicly blowing the whistle is that the org may retaliate w/ a legal suit, firing, transfer, smear campaign, etc.   
  Publicly blowing the whistle makes it difficult to interact w/ the people one is criticizing   
  Publicly blowing the whistle makes colleagues feel betrayed, attached, harmed it   
  Publicly blowing the whistle does not help the reputation of the org, & may even put it out of business   
  8.  SECRETLY THREATEN TO BLOW THE WHISTLE   
  Secretly threatening to blow the whistle has all the advantages of secretly blowing the whistle w/ the additional advantage that, when it works, i.e., when the org changes its unethical beh, the org doesn't have to be hurt by bad publicity & / or sanctions that could follow   
  Secretly threatening to blow the whistle has the disadvantage of secretly blowing the whistle in that it does not permit dialogue btwn the unethical people & the whistle blowers   
  9.  SABOTAGE   
  Sabotage in the face of unethical beh usually entails hurting or destroying the larger program in which the beh is found so that mgt shuts it down   
  The advantage of sabotage is that it can be effective & ones identity is protected   
  The disadvantages of sabotage are that one may be caught, one may feel guilty, there is often an investigation, innocent people may be hurt, etc.   
  The biggest disadvantage of sabotage is that there is no dialogue so there is no opportunity for real change   
  10.  NEGOTIATE & BUILD CONSENSUS FOR CHANGE  
  Because in general when one person opposes a group of people in cooperate beh, that one person is likely to lose, it is difficult for one person in an org to bring about change   
  The advantages to building consensus for change are that 
-  there is strength in numbers 
-  the org is less likely to retaliate against a grp
-  it builds a cooperate climate 		  
  The best negotiation strat for change is the tit for tat ( TFT ) strat where the change agents respond to positive moves by the other side w/ positive moves, and response to negative move w/ negative moves   
  The difficulty of the TFT strat is that the change agents might not have positive or negative responses available, while the org has nearly unlimited options   
  It is not uncommon for people who are pursuing bad / unethical goals to use bad / unethical methods to cover them up or punish those that threaten them   
  Negotiating & building consensus are more likely to be successful when the org is accustomed to positive sum solutions to problems   
  Unfortunately many mgrs are only accustomed to negative sum solutions where they attempt to win & punish the loser   
  It is only natural to have the 'fight or flight' reaction, even in orgs wherein when one is confronted w/ a threat at work, one often wants to leave or attack rather than calmly negotiate & build consensus   
  An additional reward to negotiating & building consensus is that for many, these activities are in themselves satisfying; negotiating & peacemaking can be empowering, transformative, & satisfying   

The End
 
Top
Link