Administrative Thinkers On Decision Making

Leadership and decision making in public administration are two of the most important pillars of good governance. Decision-making as a separate area of study was focussed upon only after the advent of the behavioural school. The major contributors to decision-making in the behavioural school are Chester Barnard and Herbert Simon. In addition to Chester Barnard, Herbert Simon, other thinkers also emphasised knowing what is decision making in public administration and postulated different models of decision making in public administration. Read on to know more about Chester Barnard decision making theory and Herbert Simon decision-making theory.

I) Chester Barnard

The first meaningful analysis of decision-making can be traced to Chester Barnard: Barnard views an organisation as a system of decision-making as well as communication. He highlights the fact that decision-making is a complex and burdensome task. If the decision taken is correct and successful, the decision-maker is happy, but this is more than matched to the frustration or depression that results from failure, or error of decisions. A decision-maker, therefore generally avoids making decisions beyond a limited degree. However, none can escape from making decisions, because decisions are thrust upon them.

According to Barnard, occasions calling for decisions originate in three distinct fields in an: organisation. They are i.e.,

From authoritative communication received from the superiors.
From cases referred for decisions by subordinates.
From cases originating at the initiative of the executive.

Thus, according to Barnard, decisions have to be made in an organisation. The decision may be positive (a decision to do something) or a negative decision (a decision not to decide).

The Process Of Decision Making According To Chester Barnard

According to Barnard, decision-making involves a search for strategic factors. We must therefore examine his ‘theory of the strategic factor’ which is related to the systems concept. In Barnard’s own words: “If we take any system, or set of conditions, or conglomeration of circumstances existing at a given time, we recognize that it consists of elements or parts or factors which together make up the whole system, set of conditions or circumstances. now, if we approach this system or set of circumstances, with a view to the accomplishment of a purpose. … The elements are parts which become distinguished into two classes: those which if absent or changed would accomplish the desired purpose, provided the others remain unchanged and the others. The first kind is often called limiting factors, the second, complementary factors … a limiting strategic factor is the one whose control, in the right form at the right place and time, will establish a new system… Which meets the purpose… If a machine is not operable because a screw is missing, the screw is the strategic (limiting) factor.

Therefore, to make an effective decision is to get control of the strategic factor and this control of strategic factor and this control must be exercised at right time, right place, with the right amount and right form so that the purpose is achieved or accomplished. ed or accomplished. The strategic factor is, then, the centre of the environment of decision. It is the point at which choice applies. To do or not to do this, that is, several strategic factors, any one of which meets the immediate situation. Often there are tentatively several strategic factors of immediate purpose. The final strategic selection will be made on the or satisfies the necessity of immediate purpose. The final basis of the estimate of less immediate future consequences. Barnard sees a decision as an act of the individual which is the result of deliberation, calculation and thought. It necessitates the location and control of strategic factors. While organizational decisions imply a logical process of discrimination, analysis and choice, non-logical processes cannot be totally ruled out. In sum, Barnard’s decision theory was a significant contribution to management thought.

II) Herbert Simon

Herbert Simon, a professor of Psychology and Computer Science at Carnegie, is one of the leading pioneers in the work of “machine intelligence.” Simon believes that computers cannot only. calculate but also think. One of his experiments with a self-programming computer showed that it could discover on its own, a law of planetary motion, first conceived of by the astronomer Kepler in the 17th century. In 1978, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work in Economics done two decades ago.

But Simon’s work in public administration began in the field of municipal government. As a young political scientist, he wrote with Clarence Ridley, a booklet, entitled, “Measuring Municipal Activities” (1938) which is rated as a minor classic in municipal administration. In this work, one can clearly see the influence of traditional public administration concepts, which he sharply. criticised in his later books.

At the University of California’s Institute of Public Administration, he published studies on varied subjects such as the ideal caseload for social workers and the measurement of fire insurance risks. In 1950, he wrote “Public Administration” with Donald Smithburg and Victor Thompson. Jointly with Harold Guetzkow, George Kozmetsky’ and George Tyndall he brought out Centralization Versus Decentralization in Organizing the Controller’s Department (1945). His work ‘Models of Man’ (1957) summarized major approaches to organization theory and was a collection of 16 mathematical journal articles. This work was co-authored by James March. Simon authored Models of Discovery,’ in 1977′ *Models of Thought’, in 1979 and Models of Bounded Rationality in 1982. A recent publication is “Reason in Human Affairs’, 1991.

The book Administrative Behavior (1947) is the one that brought Simon immediate fame. This book shows the marked influence of Chester Barnard and carries a foreword by him.

To Simon, the administration is the art of “getting the things done”. He emphasizes the processes and methods that ensure action. He says that in administrative analysis not sufficient attention is paid to the choice which precedes action. Determination of what to do rather than doing actually’ did not receive proper attention. Decision-making deals with the process of choice which leads to action. Simon points out without an adequate understanding of this dimension, which is rooted in the behaviour of man in the organisation, the study of administration would remain largely inadequate.

Simon’s contribution to decision-making can be analysed as follows:

Process of Decision-making
Existence of Values and Facts in Decision-making
Rationality in Decision-making
Place of Decision-Making in Administration
Models of Decision making it

Process Of Decision Making According To Herbert Simon

According to Simon decision-making consists of three principal phases :

1. Intelligence Activity

Borrowing from the military meaning of intelligence, this phase involves recognising and understanding the nature of the problem, as well as searching for possible causes. According to Simon, most executives spend a large fraction of their time surveying the economic, technical, political and social environment to identify new conditions that call for new actions.

2. Design Activity

During the second phase, alternative courses of action are developed and analysed in the light of known constraints. Simon postulates that most executives spend the maximum amount of time for this phase, seeking to, invent, design and develop possible courses of action for handling situations where a decision is needed.

3. Choice Activity

The third and final stage involves the actual choice among available and assessed alternatives. Simon feels that the executives spend a relatively small fraction of their time choosing among alternative actions already developed to meet an identified problem and already analysed for their consequences.

Existence Of Values And Facts In Decision Making

The first point which Simon makes in his book, Administrative Behaviour, is that every decision consists of a logical combination of fact and value (ethical) propositions. A fact is a statement indicating what the product is, was, or has been. A statement of fact may be proved or disproved. Some examples of facts are offered here: A table is made of wood; the room is warmed by central heating, or the number of people in a class is 14 or 18. These are all statements of facts, they are either true or false statements. On the other hand, value is an expression of preference. When one says, he likes a morning walk, it is a statement of preference; it is a value proposition. When one says that a festival like “Diwali’ is a good occasion, it is a statement of preference. Every decision, as Simon explains, is made up of several fact statements and one or more value statements or usually, a decision is compounded of one value statement and several fact statements.

Simon gives the following example (which he has borrowed from the infantry field manual of the United States Army) to explain the existence of facts and values in every decision:

“Surprise is an essential element of a successful attack. Its effects should be striven for in Comillas well as in large operations. Infantry effects surprise by concealment of the time and place of the attack, screening of its dispositions, rapidity of manoeuvre, deception and avoidance of stereotyped procedures”.

The above statement can be rephrased as follows :

Attack successfully ……. value statement.
An attack is successful only when carried out under conditions of surprise ……. factual statement.
The conditions of surprise are concealment of the time and place of attack etc ……. factual statement.

Mixed issues of fact and value, then impinge upon the administration value, then impinge upon the administration complicating the decision. This impingement on administration is to be seen in the purposive character of an organisation that develops groups of individuals to achieve goals ordinarily beyond the character of an organisation that develops groups of individual reach. The continuum of purposiveness includes that behaviour in an organisation is a complex network of decision processes-is, therefore, intendedly rational in character, adjusted to the goals that have been erected. Speaking of the complex network of decision processes Simon says that each decision involves the selection of a goal and behaviour relevant to it; this goal may, in turn, intermediate to a somewhat more distant goal; and so on, until a relatively final aim is reached. The ambiguous synonymity between means-ends and fact-value is clarified through a definition that in so far as decisions lead to the selection of final goals, they may be treated as `value judgements’- i.e., the value component predominates, and in so far as the decisions implement such goals, they may be treated as `factual judgements’ – i.e., the factual component predominates. The relationship of a decision to a set of ends remains a factual proposition. Simon does not refer to value decisions’ and ‘factual decisions’. For him, there are only value or factual premises and components. Thus Simon’s system of analysis makes it abundantly clear that in the administration both value and factual premises are intertwined in involvement.

Rationality In Decision Making According To Simon

What are the premises on which an administrator make his decisions? Simon’s concept of rationality revolves around answering this question.

The most often used definition of rationality in decision making is that “it is a means to an end”. If appropriate means are chosen to reach desired ends, the decision is said to be rational.

Simon defines rationality as the “selection of preferred behaviour alternatives in terms of some systems of values whereby the consequences of behaviour can be evaluated”.

However, they are many complications to this simple test of rationality. It is very difficult to separate means from ends, because an apparent end may be only a means for some future end.

This idea is commonly referred to as the “means-ends chain” or “means-ends hierarchy”. To quote Simon “the means-end hierarchy is seldom an integrated, completely connected chain. Often the connection between organisation activities and ultimate objectives is obscure, or these ultimate objectives are incompletely formulated, or there are internal conflicts and contradictions among the ultimate objectives, or among the means selected to attain them”.

Types Of Rationality According To Simon

One way to clarify the means-ends rationality is to attach appropriate qualifying adverbs to the various types of rationality. Simon identifies six different types of rationality. They are :

Objective Rationality

These decisions “maximise” given values in a given situation. Subjective Rationality: The decision is subjectively rational if it maximises attainment relative to knowledge of the given subject.

Conscious Rationality

In these types of decisions, the adjustment of means to ends is a conscious process.

Deliberately Rational

A decision is deliberately rational to the degree that the adjustment of means to ends is deliberately sought by the individual or the organisation.

Organisationally Rational

These decisions are aimed at organisational goals. A sa Personally Rational: The decisions which are directed to the individual goals are known as personally rational’ decisions.