The
garbage can model is one of the most recent and interesting descriptions of
organizational decision processes. It is not directly comparable to the earlier
models, because the garbage can model
deals with the pattern or flow of multiple decisions within organizations,
while the incremental and Carnegie models focus upon how a single decision is
made. The garbage can model helps you think of the whole organization and the
frequent decisions being made by managers throughout.
Organized
Anarchy. The garbage can
model was developed to explain the pattern of decision making in organizations
that experience extremely high uncertainty. Michael Cohen, James March, and
Johan Olsen, the originators of the model, called the highly uncertain
conditions an organized anarchy, which is an extremely organic organization.
Organized anarchies do not rely on the normal vertical hierarchy of authority
and bureaucratic decision rules. They are caused by three characteristics :
1. Problematic
Preferences. Goals, problems, alternatives, and solutions are ill
defined. Ambiguity characterizes each step of a decision process.
2. Unclear,
Poorly Understood Technology.
Cause and effect relationship within the organization are difficult to
identify. An explicit database that applies to decisions is not available.
3. Turnover. Organizational positions experience turnover of
participants. In addition, employees are busy and have only limited time to
allocate to any one problem or decision. Participation in any given decision
will be fluid and limited.
The
organized anarchy describes organizations characterized by rapid change and a
collegial, nonbureaucratic environment. No organization fits this extremely
organic circumstance all the time. Many organizations will occasionally find
themselves in positions of making decisions under unclear, problematic
circumstances. The garbage can model is useful for understanding the pattern of
these decisions.
Streams
of Events. The unique
characteristic of the garbage can model is that the decision process is not
seen as a sequence of steps that begins with a problems and ends with a
solution. Indeed, problem identification and problem solution may not even be
connected to each other. An idea may be proposed as a solution when no problem
is specified. A problem may exist and never generate a solution. Decisions are
the outcome of independent streams of events within the organization. The four
streams relevant to organizational decision making are as follow :
1. Problems.
Problems are points of
dissatisfaction with current activities and performance. They represent a gap
between desired performance and current activities. Problems are perceived to
require attention. However, they are distinct from solutions and choices. A
problem may lead to a proposed solution or it may not. Problems may not be
solved when solutions are adopted.
2. Potential
Solutions. A solution is an
idea somebody proposes for adoption. Such idea from a flow of alternative
solutions through the organization. Ideas may be brought into the organization
by new personnel or may be invented by existing personnel. Participants may
simply be attracted to certain ideas and push them as logical choices
regardless of problems. Attraction to an idea may cause an employee to look for
a problem to which the idea can be attached and hence justified. The point is
that solutions exist independent of problems.
3. Participants. Organization participants are employees who come and go
throughout the organization. People are hired, reassigned, and fired.
Participants vary widely in their ideas, perception of problems, experience,
values, and training. The problems and solutions recognized by one manager will
differ from those recognized by another manager.
4. Choice
Opportunities. Choice
opportunities are occasions when an organization usually makes a decision. They
occur when contracts are signed, when people are hired, when a new product is
authorized. They also occur when the right mix of participants, solutions, and
problems exists. Thus a manager who happened to laern of a good idea may suddenly become aware of a
problem to which it applies and hence can provide the organization with a
choice opportunity. Match-ups of problems and solutions often result in
decisions.
With
the concept of four streams, the overall of organizational decision making takes on a random quality. Problems,
solutions, participants, and choices all flow through the organization. In one
sense, the organization is a large garbage can in which these streams are being
stirred, as illustrated in exhibit 11.6. When a problem, solution, and
participant happen to connect at one point, a decision may be made and the
problem may be solved; but if the solution does not fit the problem, the
problem may not be solved. Thus, when viewing the organization as a whole and
considering its high level of uncertainty, one sees problems arise that are not
solved, and solutions tried that do not work. Organization decisions are
disorderly and not the result of a logical step by step sequence. Events may be
so ill defined and complex that decisions, problems, and solutions act as
independent events. When they connect, some problems are solved, but many are
not.
Consequences.
Four consequences
of the garbage can decision process for organizational decision making are as
follow :
1. Solution
may be Proposed even when Problems Do Not Exist. An employee may be sold on an idea and may try to sell it
to the rest of the organization. An example was the adoption of computers by
many organizations during the 1970s. The computer was an exciting solution and
was pushed by both computer manufacturers and system analysts within
organizations. The computer did not solve any problems in those initial
applications. Indeed, some computers caused more problems than they solved.
2. Choices
are Made without Solving Problems. A choice such as creating a new department may be made with the intention
of solving a problem; but under conditions of high uncertainty, the choice may
be incorrect. Moreover, many choices just seem to happen. People decide to
quit, the organization’s budget is cut or a new policy bulletin is issued.
These choices may be oriented toward problems but do not necessarily solve
them.
3. Problems
may Persist without Being Solved. Organization participants get used to certain problems and give up trying
to solve them; or participants may not know how to solve certain problems
because the technology is unclear. A university in Canada was placed on
probation by the American Association of University Professors because a
professor had been denied tenure without due process. The probation was a
nagging annoyance that the administrators wanted to remove. Fifteen years
later, the nontenured professor died. The probation continues because the
university did not acquiesce to the demands of the heirs or the association to
reevaluate the case. The university would like to solve the problem, but
administrators are not sure how, and they do not have the resources to allocate
to it. The probation problem persists without a solution.
4. A
Few Problems are Solved.
The decision process does work in the agreegate. In computer simulation models
of the garbage can model, important problems were often resolved. Solutions do
connect with appropriate problems and participants so that a good choice is
made. Of course, not all problems are resolved when choices are made, but the
organization does move in the direction of problem reduction.
The
effects of independent streams and the rather chaotic decision processes in the
garbage can model were illustrated in the reorganization of a drama department
at a major university. Although these events began many years ago, the decision
process used is typical of many universities today. Notice how the flow of
people, problems, and solutions leads to choice opportunities that ultimately
add up to a major decision.
The
decision to eliminate the speech program was not a rational process that
started with a problem and ended with a logical solution. Many events occurred
by chance and were intertwined, which characterizes the garbage can model.
First, a number of participants came and went in the decision process. There
was turnover among deans and faculty members, and new employees brought new
ideas and values to the situation. Second, the larger decision process was the
result of streams of small events. Several small problems surfaced in the
speech program. Several choices were made, such as increasing or decreasing the
emphasis on the program, hiring and firing faculty, making transfers, and
adding new administrators. These streams of events accumulated into the larger
decision to eliminate the program. Third, many of the choices had little to do
with problems. Letting a research oriented faculty member leave, for example,
was a choice independent of the decision to drop the program, but eventually
influenced it. Fourth, the system had more than one solution. Faculty members
pushed one set of options and the deans pushed another set. Fifth, the ultimate
decision to drop the program was made in response to a problem unrelated to the
program itself, which was to save money for the university. Overall, the
decision process had a random, chancy flavor characteristic of garbage can
processes. However, the apparent randomness did not necessarily work against
the organization. An important problem was eventually resolved, although for
reasons other than those the faculty members and the associate dean intended.
