Abstract of a conference by Eric Gaynor Butterfield at the Organizational Development Conference, Argentina 2001) - www.theodinstitute.org
In order to provide readers with those notable Authors in Organizational Behavior and Development "within" the area of "Cognitive Intelligence", the following list of authors is included:
• Crozier, Michel
Michel Crozier has led change projects and worked with many public companies and government agencies in his native France, also being exposed to various experiences in organizations as a result of his years of residence in the United States of America. A notable difference for Crozier from other practitioners and business consultants is that his view of bureaucratic organizations is distinctive; For Michel, bureaucracies are not merely rational organizations of a monolithic type, but rather entities where there is a continuous interaction between the organizational participants and the entity itself.
These organizations are characterized by having and enjoying significant stability during many of their years of existence, which are modified during a very short period of time characterized by some type of crisis that triggers the need for organizational change. For many years the organization operates as if it exists within a stable context, with rules and regulations that remain largely unchanged, and conflicts can become swept under the rug. But this “calm girl” the only true thing it does is to presage an explosion, and, consequently, crises are seen as necessary elements that allow the organizational transformation to be promoted and emerged. In these moments of crisis, figures appear that begin to informally replace the established rules and regulations,as the forces for change begin to have a greater relative weight. The figure that emerges is the one that Michel calls “authoritarian reformer” who stands out beyond the routines, rules and norms during that moment of crisis, to achieve a new organizational arrangement. In any case, we should not be totally critical of the bureaucratic model since, according to Michel, there has never been so much change and at such a high rate of change as we are experiencing today, and especially within large organizations.In any case, we should not be totally critical of the bureaucratic model since, according to Michel, there has never been so much change and at such a high rate of change as we are experiencing today, and especially within large organizations.In any case, we should not be totally critical of the bureaucratic model since, according to Michel, there has never been so much change and at such a high rate of change as we are experiencing today, and especially within large organizations.
There are differences between the French bureaucratic organization and that of the United States of America that Michel Crozier brings to light. Within all this panorama Michel is optimistic suggesting that the public administration system in France, together with its caste system, can be reformed through various mechanisms and privileging the recruitment / selection of personnel, as well as through training programs.. A point that Crozier suggests to take into account all those who are involved in some way in change and organizational development - supported by the power games that exist in bureaucratic entities - are the "power games" that slow down the development of the organization.
These "power games" as Michel Crozier calls them is based on a set of assembled games that hold preponderance over the "organizational design" that directors have in their head (or rather their mind). Through the game power relations are channeled within the organization, something that March & Simon (“Organizations”; Wiley and Sons -. 1958) treat in a somewhat different way, but which they also pay attention to. The concept of inducements-contributions together with that of limited rationality (James March and Herbert Simon) bears some relation to Crozier's conception,since the different organizational participants and their respective sub-units and sub-groups entertain themselves in games where power is distributed above the formal distribution of power envisaged by those at the top of the pyramid. These power games where there is a multitude of coalitions, both formal and informal, between superiors, subordinates, contracted, outsourced, clients, suppliers, professionals, experts, consultants, among others, come to shape what Michel Crozier calls - sarcastically and ironically - the “ strategic model of the company ”.among others they come to shape what Michel Crozier calls - sarcastically and ironically - the “strategic model of the company”.among others they come to shape what Michel Crozier calls - sarcastically and ironically - the “strategic model of the company”.
Michel Crozier makes it very clear that all those who participate in this strategic model do so to a certain extent; everyone has "their limit". All of them distribute power but they are aware that above all "the organization" must continue to exist. The struggles in the "power games" refer to different positions taken by the organizational participants, but these struggles are characterized by not being life and death, since there are many subtle mechanisms to appropriate power without killing the opponent (see additional material in the Book of Dr. Donald Cole and Eric Gaynor entitled: "Professional Suicide or Organizational Murder"; The Organization Development Institute International - 2005)
Once again, the work of James March and Herbert Simon coincides with that of Michel Crozier when the latter points out that "the level of uncertainty affects power." In an important study case carried out in a tobacco industry, Crozier supported the mentioned position. Maintenance personnel were able - and did so - to completely shut down the factory, making the entire company dependent on the exercise of this very small staff. The maintenance personnel had extremely precise knowledge regarding "how to make the machines run" that was not taught or shared with other people in the company and then, at their discretion, regulated the operation of the entity to the point of paralyzing it completely.This happened about 60 years ago in France and we have examples with aviation airlines where pilots and instrument makers can bring the company to a complete halt. (During a consulting job in Argentina where a company had a high level of dependency on a certain group, the owner, when I participated in it, Crozier's experience told me that this is not very likely to happen in this country since a large part of specialists do not know their own work… and also can not be fired with what general ignorance).When I participated, Crozier's experience told me that this is not very likely to happen in this country since many of the specialists do not know their own work… and in addition, they cannot be fired with general ignorance).When I participated, Crozier's experience told me that this is not very likely to happen in this country since many of the specialists do not know their own work… and in addition, they cannot be fired with general ignorance).
There is a way to reduce uncertainty and that is through norms, rules and procedures and this is "democratically distributed throughout the organization", covering both superiors and subordinates, where the latter reject them because they reduce their degree of discretion, but on the other hand they promote them since they also reduce the level of discretion of their superiors.
Summarizing, we can say that Michel Crozier greatly agrees with our point of view that bureaucratic organizations are entities where "managers look up expecting instructions from the top management that never come… and to make matters worse, these instructions must be followed and obeyed by managers' subordinates, who really have little interest in complying with them ”.
Michel Crozier: “The bureaucratic phenomenon”; Tavistock Publications - 1964
Michel Crozier: "Comparing structures and comparing games" in European contributions in organization theory - 1976.
• Lindblom, Charles E.
Charles Lindblom (“Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving” Yale University Press - 1979) is part of the select group of academics and researchers who see organizations as cognitive units that in turn are made up of different organizational participants who act in based on their particular way of decision-making. In this process of mutual inter-relationship between the individual and the organization, the importance of the decision-making process arises and also of those-decision-makers.
To some extent Lindblom agrees with Herbert Simon and James March (“Organizations”; already quoted) that management, and also decision making, is not rational. As an economist and also a scholar of political science who privilege the “macro” approach, Charles Lindblom shows how the deductive rational approach (which he considers ideal and that is presented in the management of the economy) has to take into account a multiplicity of variables of high complexity that in turn all interact with each other and require that one go to the same root of the situation / problem. The deductive approach pays strong attention to values and their application, and as a result narrows down what is “about”, and would lead us to a “synoptic approach” to decision making.
Unfortunately, it is not common to find applications of the same within the organizational or business environment, and Lindblom suggests that this is due both to the decision-making process that is present in companies and also by the decision-makers themselves.
As the ideal-rational-deductive method is not practiced in companies due to the above mentioned and also to other factors (hand-to-hand and resistance fight between people and between groups / units), a process of accommodation - which does not necessarily have to do with reconciliation - which gives rise to what Lindblom calls “mutual partisan adjustment”, with its characteristic of resistance. But even if he were clear about all the values of the different interests at stake, he could not give them a ranking based on their importance.
But on the other hand - and unlike the approach of the economist or political science student - the manager within the company is usually managed with a less complex scheme where the objectives are rather simple and the market, although turbulent, can be largely predictable.. This would lead us to a series of alternatives that can be handled reasonably well, especially considering that many situations "repeat" themselves with certain regularity, leading us to make decisions that, within certain parameters, are reasonably rational, although limited. Herbert Simon ("Administrative Behavior"; Macmillan - 1960 / "The new science of management decision"; Harper &Row - 1960) suggests that decision makers in companies must adapt in their daily actions within organizations to act taking into account their own limited capacities to make decisions. And Lindblom does not fail to highlight the importance and mutual relationship that exists between values and facts, making it necessary for values to be limited for decision-makers (Edgar Schein: “Organizational Psychology”; Prentice Hall - 1980) He has talked a lot about this topic making subtle suggestions for management.)"Organizational Psychology"; Prentice Hall - 1980) has talked a lot about this topic making subtle suggestions for management)."Organizational Psychology"; Prentice Hall - 1980) has talked a lot about this topic making subtle suggestions for management).
Taking all these factors into account, Charles Lindblom suggests that the strategy for decision-making that is usually in force within the organizational world is not what it defines as a synoptic approach.
According to Lindblom, the current strategy is what he calls “strategy of disjointed incrementalism”. Under this strategy, decision-makers do not start from scratch but from a reality that previously existed in the life of the decision-maker. Charles has given this approach the name "successive limited comparisons".
In the decision-maker's mind, small increases related to processes that are not coordinated and between each other and that are generally disconnected are taken into account. This "incrementalist" approach - which is valid in different areas of the behavioral sciences of individuals within organizations (see the book by Dr. Donald Cole and Eric Gaynor: "Professional Suicide and Organizational Murder", The OD Institute International - 2004), makes the tremendous mistake of not distinguishing between the incremental and the non-incremental. In summary, we could go so far as to say that limited decision-making organizations and limited decision-making processes can come to work when instead of the "root" approach mentioned by Charles Lindblom (see above) it is replaced by the "branch" approach. (branch).
“Disunged incrementalism” makes decision-making within organizations characterized by focusing on day-to-day illnesses that are not necessarily related to departmental sub-objectives, let alone organizational objectives. And choose the following characteristics that are present in "disunited incrementalism":
- marginal analyzes are carried out,
- which are based on a limited number of alternatives,
- where instead of the means adjusting to the ends, the ends are adjusting to the means,
- oriented to reconstruct, that is, in the It is best to return to the original situation
- through sequential steps that punish a holistic approach
- that identify and prioritize the disease situations from which one must move away rather than focus on the goals to be achieved, and finally
- it is a fragmented approach with only partial coordination.
If we had to find a common characteristic of "disunited incrementalism" you could choose "size reduction" since it is looking for:
limiting the information to be taken into account
restricting the total memory by evoking only some parts “that we believe are important”
the number of options is reduced as there are difficulties in processing and fully evaluating the situation
the horizon to be taken into account
is reduced the time that is makes available for decision making
In the daily life of the organization this means that everything that is not taken into account now can be handled later. The famous phrase "resistance to change" is a good reflection of "disunited incrementalism" (which is very common in consultants' mouths).
In the race to escape the rational-deductive synoptic approach, managers opt for the (limited) strategy of disunited incrementalism. In situations of relatively low change, it can give certain results since, in any case, its consequences are short-range. Something for all practitioners, consultants, agents and facilitators of change within the organizational and business world to consider is the suggestion made by Charles Lindblom when he points out that it is reasonably possible to make changes quickly both as a result of successive small changes with high frequency and thus, drastic changes are also adopted with less frequent or assiduous steps.And they must also bear in mind the directors and company managers that the synoptic approach can stop decision makers from initiating all kinds of action, which means a total paralysis of the company.
It is hoped that the seasoned reader can effectively manage these two dimensions efficiently, to the benefit of both organizational and organizational participants.
• March, James E.
He has been a Professor of Management at Stanford University, California which he combined with his strong interests in decision making in organizations at Carnegie-Mellon University. He always had very close ties with two other cognitive scholars: Richard Cyert and Herbert Simon, both of whom were also at Carnegie-Mellon University.
The artistic component stands out in this excellent researcher in Behavioral Sciences with a strong specialization in decision making. The poetic, the game / entertainment, the exploration of seemingly "silly" alternatives along with inconsistent options, are a hallmark of James March's genius.
March ("Decisions and Organizations", Blackwell - 1988) suggests that - in the best of cases - what really exists in the life of companies is what he defines as "organized anarchy", where decision-making processes enter by generally in one of these four categories:
Quasi-conflict resolution, which is what occurs most frequently, being related to the political nature of the organizations and not finding a resolution to the problem. Therefore, these are quasi-resolution mechanisms that make it possible to live with problems, one of them being the “local rationality” mechanism. Each one of the departments of the organization satisfies the local objectives (in fact they are organizational sub-objectives), that is, of its own unit. The purchasing department focuses on “how to buy”, the human resources department on “how to recruit personnel”, and the sales department on “how to sell” and the behaviors of these units are rational but only in terms of themselves.These apparent rational decisions turn out to be inconsistent when high interdependence between departments is required, such as when the marketing management requests additional money from the Budget management for a promotion that is not included in the company's budget.
Another form of quasi-problem solving is through a mechanism by which a solution is reached through what March calls the "acceptable level"; Differences are tolerated and sometimes the level of tolerance may have to do with how power is distributed within the company. Within quasi-problem solving, there is another way that March calls "paying attention to objectives sequentially." This is very common in new projects where consideration is given to some phase that, once completed, allows us to move to the next. It is very common for companies to embark on a program where a "stock balance" is promoted and then find themselves in an uncomfortable situation for one of two reasons:or because they run out of stock very quickly and cannot satisfy all the requirements of the Clients or else, or because they cannot leave the "stock in time". The method of paying attention to goals sequentially occurs when conflicts arising from different goals cannot be resolved.
It is very common that as a result of the dilemmas that arise from decision-making, they are resolved by the method of “avoiding uncertainty”. In reality much of what happens within the corporate world and that is outside the monopolistic or oligopolistic markets is really uncertain. Companies are not sure of their level of sales, nor of the mix of sales of their different products and services, nor of the taxes that others want to transfer to them, nor of the labor cost that can be strongly influenced by external regulatory agencies. Therefore the "ostrich policy" can be highly practical; When the problem is not seen, it supposedly does not exist. The lobbies that companies carry out with the rulers on duty are one of the mechanisms that organizations use,and so is the fact of awarding exclusive contracts to certain Clients, such as the establishment of annual open purchase orders for certain relatively large volumes.
Another method is what James March calls “search is problemistic”. It is true that a problem causes a search towards the solution, but it is very common that when you think you have a solution, you stop the search. Urgent information is prioritized over relevant information and not always correctly discriminate between the two. In this quest for a solution it is likely that the problem will be associated with the previous story and a solution will be evoked… that was previously applied for a different situation and time. Creative and innovative propositions that are necessary in turbulent markets where the changes required are transformational in nature, lag behind, to say the least.Commercial companies often choose promotion from within with the purpose of "not making waves" within the organization. The United States Postal Service has a personnel promotion system that is fundamentally based on the current personnel plant itself.
Another way to reduce organizational anarchy is through organizational learning (see also Peter Senge: "The Fifth Discipline"). Many times within companies things work under the postulate of "starting the cart without accommodating the melons" assuming that they are going to be ordered with the cart running. Many companies have an induction system for new staff who have been hired that is based on the “either nothing or drowns” principle (see Edgar Schein already quoted).
Organized anarchy is a characteristic that is present within any organizational arrangement, although it is true that not all the time, which means that there are some limits to this organized anarchy. The limits are established by three main characteristics which are:
- the organization gets to know its objectives only when it is running
- as their own technology is not really known, the same processes are also not known and learning is largely done by the animal species method known as "trial and error"
- those who really participate (and appear at committee meetings, for example) have to do with what happens and with what is changed and modified.
James March's monumental work with its extraordinary artistic dose suggests that decision-making is so "non-rational" that it can be understood as a famous painting, poem or novel.
The lack of rationality on the part of the different organizational participants added to the turbulent changes in the market mean that not only do people not understand what they are doing, but also the organizations themselves do not believe if what they are doing makes any sense..
For March, there are limits to rationality in decision-making, both cognitively and politically and organizationally. And what happens as one of the main engines of this limited rationality has to do with the phenomenon of "attention"; people do not pay attention and as a result attention turns out to be a scarce resource that organizations have to deal with anyway. Consequently, only "one part" is attended to in the decision-making process, and often focusing on something prevents seeing "the other", suggesting James March that "every input represents an output that is not always the best".
The combination of a scarce "attention" added to the limited cognitive capacity leads us to a concrete fact that is defined as "limited rationality".
To make things even worse there are what James March calls erratic preferences resulting from the combination of:
people change what they have in their mind regarding what they want
even knowing what they want they can ignore their own preferences
they can follow the advice of others or refer to their own preferences in an ambiguous way which also alters their decision
In an expansion of their original work - and jointly with Cyert - both authors (RM Cyert & JG March: “A behavioral theory of the firm”; Prentice-Hall - 1963) suggest that as a consequence of the summation of cognitive limits From rationality to political limits, a company is nothing more than a political coalition with multiple objectives in constant change. The coalition is made up of different actors such as shareholders, suppliers, clients, tax and social security collection bodies, insurance brokers, employees, managers, among others.
All of them have their preferences regarding what the organization should be and seek to achieve their sub-objectives that may be in conflict with other sub-objectives and even against the company's own objectives. Therefore, we continuously find within this political coalition an organizational form that is reached as a consequence of negotiation and haggling processes, and this greatly reduces organizational anarchy.
But a very important dilemma arises that James March puts in terms of comparing "organizational inducements" with contributions from organizational participants. And every seasoned reader should keep in mind that organizational inducements can leave the quantitative aspect and have qualitative components within themselves; but this is not the case for organizational members who must make contributions / contributions.
Another important contribution is the fact that James March and Herbert Simon debunked a conception that has had - and continues to have - much validity. We refer to the basic assumption of the school known under the name of Human Relations, which suggests that the higher the level of satisfaction (by the employee) as an independent variable, we must achieve greater organizational efficiency or productivity (dependent variable).
From here on out - at least conceptually - March & Simon made it clear that this relationship is not true but rather can be seen backwards; a productive person is very likely to be satisfied / content.
The practical component of the monumental work of James March and Herbert Simon published under the title "Organizations" and edited by Wiley & Sons in 1958 was taken up by Frederick Herzberg ("Work and the nature of man"; World Publishing Co. - 1966 / " One more time: How do you motivate employees ?; Harvard Business Review - 1968 / and with B. Mausner & B. Snyderman: “The motivation to work”; Wiley - 1959) who has gone one step further identifying the motivating forces and distinguishing them from the hygienic components, that although important do not have a direct implication in the productivity. Apparently, and following March &Simon levels of job satisfaction are rather related to a "low turnover" and a "low level of absenteeism" with what is important to distinguish the employee who comes to the organization from the employee who actually produces.
The creative - and partly sarcastic component of James March - together with the collaboration of two other scholars (Cohen and Olsen; see March & JP Olsen: "Ambiguity and choice in organizations"; Bergen - 1976) suggest the existence of a "model called “garbage can”, with which they have become famous. This garbage can receives both solutions and problems thrown there by the organizational members as they are generated. For James March it is highly paradoxical that:
people fight within the company to participate in decision-making… but they do not make use of said participation
people request information… that they do not use then they
fight during the debate on what to decide… but they have no interest in following up to Seeing if the decision has been implemented
In James March's super-alert eyes, all this is extremely curious, to say the least. And then it suggests that a decision is the result of the relationships between organizational participants, problems, solutions, choice methods and options to follow. In turn, decisions are reached as a consequence of three main routes:
by resolution, through a specially designed process to which a reasonable amount
of time is devoted by speed, when decisions are made very quickly on
the fly, which arises when the original problem statement "has gone or has flown" acknowledging a choice that can be made but does not solve absolutely anything.
According to James March, most of the decisions made within the “organizational anarchy” have to do with routes b. and c. described above.
As a final point, nothing better than to quote one of James March's masterful phrases such as when he points out that “an organization is a collection of elections in search of problems, issues and feelings that in turn are in search of decision-making situations and solutions that they are looking for issues to which they hope to have an answer, and where decision makers are interested in having a job. ”
*** James March and Herbert Simon dedicated a lot of energy to the analysis of bureaucracy and focused on its dysfunctions in their 1958 treatise "Organizations". And nothing better than to go to these authors to know in greater detail the limits of bureaucratic organization.
Max Weber ("The theory of social and economic organization"; Free Press - 1947) and tries to demonstrate that bureaucratic organization is a rational response to the complexities that arise in the daily actions of companies. More specifically, it tries to show how bureaucratic organization manages to overcome the computational limits that people have for decision-making or other alternative forms of organization such as specialization, division of labor, among others. There is no doubt that Weber goes beyond the “mechanistic” model, since among other things, he studies in detail the relationship between the person and his role. But nevertheless, Weber perceives the bureaucracy as an adaptive system to make use of specialized skills,and ignores some aspects related to the character of the human organism.
And it is interesting to note that when we move away from Weber and consider other more recent scholars of the bureaucracy we find that they pay attention to the "unanticipated consequences" of organizational members. Such is the case of RK Merton (“The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action” - 1936), by AW Gouldner (“Patterns of industrial bureaucracy”; Glencoe - 1954 / “Theoretical requirements of the applied social sciences” - American Sociological Review - 1957) and also by Philip Selznick ("TVA and the grass roots"; Berkeley - 1949), who mention many of the dysfunctional consequences of bureaucracy. These scholars suggest that operating under the "mechanistic" model may even perpetuate the "mechanistic" model even further.
The models of these authors show certain similar aspects, particularly when identifying as an independent variable the organizational procedures and the way in which they control individual behavior. It seems that organizational procedures have consequences for leaders, but at the same time there are some dysfunctional consequences for the organization.
Merton ("Bureaucratic structure and personality"; Social Forces - 1940) pays attention to dysfunctions in organizational learning. It suggests that organizational participants learn responses to similar situations that, under other conditions, are inappropriate for the organization. An independent variable of paramount importance to Merton is the "increased demand for control" demanded by those at the top of the organization, which in turn impacts on greater behavioral reliability and "accountability." This is implemented within companies through standardized procedures which negatively impact on uploads.
Among the negative aspects, Merton mentions the reduction in the number of personalized relationships, the internalization of rules and norms against organizational objectives, and a simplification in the categorization for decision making, which in turn impacts on less search for alternative solutions. And it includes a series of examples of dysfunctional consequences in relations with Clients, which have been notorious in "service" organizations and government entities.
Selznick (already cited - 1949) differs from Merton (who chooses the variable with the greatest control) and pays attention to the delegation of authority. Delegation has a multitude of consequences, including the need for more and better training in specialized competitions. These specialized competencies tend to lessen the difference between organizational objectives and personal achievement, further strengthening delegation. At the same time, the delegation results in greater departmentalization and an increase in the "bifurcation of interests" between the different sub-units of the company.
At the same time, training entails greater competition, which will cause greater expenses in "personnel changes" and this leads to further differentiation. The bifurcation of interests increases the conflict between the different organizational sub-units, which further increases the difference between the objectives of the company and the career development of the organizational participants. To make matters worse, the various organizational sub-units begin to develop ideologies for each of their units.
Gouldner's (1954 - already cited) model is somewhat similar to that of Merton and Selznick. Like Merton, Gouldner is interested in the impact of bureaucratic rules and regulations on organizational functioning. It attempts to demonstrate how a control technique designed to maintain the balance of a subsystem alters the balance of the system as a whole.
Gouldner suggests that creating rules and norms at work give “clues” to action for organizational participants who stray from company goals and what those at the top of the pyramid are trying to do. Organizational members learn what minimum acceptable behavior is. This “minimum acceptable” performance is considered a failure by superiors, which in turn entails a “closer supervision” that increases the degree of tension within the work group, and finally alters the “original balance that was expected to be achieved. through the implementation of rules and regulations ”.
James March and Herbert Simon point to other authors: R. Bendix ("Bureaucracy: The problem and its setting"; American Sociological Review - 1947), R. Dubin ("Decision making by management in industrial relations"; American Journal of Sociology - 1949), and PM Blau (“The Dynamics of Bureaucracy”; Chicago - 1955), critics of the bureaucratic system. What is important and remarkable for March and Simon is based on the fact that the three main authors mentioned above (Merton, Selznick and Gouldner) have dysfunctional consequences for organizations that adopt a bureaucratic-type arrangement.
• Simon, Herbert A.
Both James March and Herbert Simon in their monumental work "Organizations" (1958 - Wiley and Sons) describe a necessary red flag for Max Weber's approach to bureaucratic organization. In this work, the two authors summarize an infinity of field work and research that leads them to conclude regarding the dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy. Both authors show how the inadequacies of the bureaucracy can - paradoxically - be as much a reason for its perpetuity as for its efficiencies.
James March and Herbert Simon are worthy pioneers of the cognitive movement in organizations. For James March, an organization is a collection of options in the face of problems, issues and feelings that seek decisions for situations in the environment, where solutions are given in the search for topics for which the answers may become, where decision makers are looking for a job. On the other hand, Herbert Simon suggests that the task of administration is such that the individual can get as close as possible and in the most practical way to rationality in her decision making (in terms of organizational objectives).
Simon is a distinguished scientist in politics and society and his contributions have had a strong influence in various disciplines. He began his task in public administration and operational research, and as a consequence of his role in multiple universities he was able to integrate different aspects of administration. At Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, he delved into decision-making, using computers as a means of simulating human thinking. In 1978 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics… based on, among other things, his important contributions in micro-economics (see book: "Organizations", 1958 by Wiley and Sons).
For Herbert Simon, management is synonymous with decision-making, having focused on how decisions are made in practice and how these decisions can become more effective. He suggests that in the general decision-making process there are three main stages:
Finding occasions when there is a decision to be made, which we can associate with an intelligence activity in the military sense.
Inventing, developing and analyzing possible courses of action, what could be called a design activity.
Choosing a particular course of action from all possible options, representing an "option / choice" or "optional" activity.
Simon suggests that intelligence activity generally precedes design activity, and in turn it occurs before the election, but this is not so simple sequentially and cannot always occur under this scheme. What is absolutely certain within the Herbert Simon model is that all managerial activity is embedded in decision-making.
Simon's basic question is this: On what basis do managers make decisions? Traditional economic theory is based on an assumption where man is hedonistic and that he is based on his rationality.
Economists have for this a model of the “economic man” who rationally chooses the best possible alternative course of action in order to maximize their returns, a model that of course departs from reality, since we know very well that there is an element non-rational in people's thinking and behaviors.
On this basis the need for an administrative theory exists precisely because there are practical limits to human rationality. In turn, these limits in terms of rationality are not static since they depend on the organizational context within which the individual decision is developed. Consequently, the task of "managing" is strongly linked to the design of an organizational context where the individual can approach rationality in decision making, and that this approach is practical in terms of organizational objectives.
As a consequence of his hypotheses Herbert Simon proposes a model of the "administrative man" to replace the "economic man". While the economic man maximizes by selecting the best course of action from all possible options, the administrative man simply "satisfies" in his effort to approach a decision that is sufficiently satisfactory. According to Simon, in his day-to-day actions, the manager seeks to make and adopt decisions within a range of satisfactory alternatives that are not necessarily the optimal alternatives, and this, in turn, has implications beyond individuals, which means in the It is a practice that organizations also only achieve their objectives far from optimization.
In personal terms, we could say that if they had to make a birthday cake for one of their children, they would make a “cake that could be eaten” and NOT a cake that is greatly enjoyed and remembered by their child's classmates (perhaps for this reason it is remarkable managers' excellent predisposition to “delegate” to other tasks that are trivial). Observing this phenomenon in organizational terms and from the business point of view, we can say that in the management process within companies, the aim is not to “maximize profit” but to have a reasonable profit, instead of paying an optimal price they speak of a fair price and instead of selling at the best price, sales are made at "a price that ends with a good time with this stock".
In Herbert Simon's terms the experience of managers, their degrees and Diplomas in the best Universities, Postgraduate courses are not enough to maximize decision making. Furthermore, Simon also points out that in terms of “novelty” both situational and temporal in terms of product and service processes, management can operate intelligently but they must be less effective and efficient. This carries a very important consideration as it puts the organization in a risky situation when the "relative rate of change is high".
By analyzing the organizational decision-making process that takes place within a changing context, sometimes by being reactive to what is happening in the market and other times when the company takes initiatives and acts pro-actively, Herbert Simon makes a distinction identifying Two polarities: decisions can be scheduled and also unscheduled, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Programmed decisions resemble what largely occurs within mechanistic organizations in terms of Burns & Stalker (1961) or Max Weber's (1947) rational bureaucratic organization. These types of programmed decisions are based on the fact that they are repetitive and respond to routines in the day-to-day operations within the company. This means that, when faced with a new repetitive action of something that has been done in the past, it does not generate the need for a new decision. Mechanistic organizations go to great lengths to develop routinization (and also control) mechanisms, and their dysfunctional consequences have long been mentioned. In fact, if most management decisions were simply scheduled, less time would be required for on-site managers.We will talk about this later since it is a topic of utmost importance in today's business reality.
When confronted with a new situation that is unstructured or also under situations where a single best option does not clearly emerge (something that was of great concern to Frederick Taylor some 40 years earlier) we are faced with an unscheduled decision.
Faced with this type of situation that is the current business characteristic, the organization, no matter how much effort it makes to find an answer in its organizational or individual history, it is very possible that it will not find the optimal solution. It is no coincidence that in this type of situation, of Organizational Change and Development, companies “bring” external resources to the organization as a means of assistance and help. Here Maslow's beautiful phrase is applied when he points out that "if what we have to solve a problem is a hammer, then we have to see almost everything as a nail".
Therefore, the best way to avoid seeing so many “unique” nails is to have a more complete kit of tools… and consultants and their consulting companies are very good at showing this, regardless of the results they will later achieve - or better said, not reaching.
There are many techniques that have emerged and taken a new turn in the 20th century such as operational research, electronic data processing, computer technology, computer simulation, mathematical analysis, digital communication, which were initially used for routine activities and scheduled operations that were of application for administrative staff mainly. But with the passage of time more and more new elements of appreciation are incorporated for operations that in the first cycle are not initially programmed and that every day are transformed into operations programmed for their second cycle.
Eric Gaynor Butterfield (World Congress of the Organization Development Institute in Zimbabwe, 1999) refers to this fact, which is especially applied to the “Professionals” who make up an extremely important percentage of the staff of large corporations. Today, large multinational corporations are in a position to make significant reductions in the total strength of professionals, since “discretion” in decision-making is in sharp decline and makes its “Diplomates” unnecessary.
This phenomenon is dealt with in detail by Dr. Donald Cole and Eric Gaynor in the book: "Professional Suicide or Organizational Murder" - The OD Institute International - 2004; Here we want to honor Herbert Simon for his role as an illuminator in this regard.
And we consider that there is no better ending than to reproduce the meaning of some words of the genius of Herbert Simon when he points out that the company of the future has to operate on the basis of programmed decisions that in turn are made in the automated office next to him.. And remember that this was expressed "to others" around 1960!
• Tannenbaum, Arnold S.
For a person who started and finished his first formal studies within the hard sciences (upon graduating from Purdue University as an electrical engineer) becoming recognized within the social sciences as Arnold Tannenbaum has achieved, it is not a simple matter. But his conversion as a social psychologist, later working as a researcher, consultant, professor and practitioner and as a member of the Institute for Social Research (leader in social research), catapult him as one of the main exponents of participatory models within organizations.
And the extraordinary wealth of the work of Arnold Tannenbaum ("Social Psychology of the work organization"; Tavistock - 1966 / "Control in Organizations"; McGraw-Hill - 1968 / "Controversies about control and democracy in organizations"; The international Yearbook of organizational democracy - 1986) is based, among other aspects, on the multitude and variety of organizational arrangements where research has been carried out to which must be added a multitude of cultures and countries.
But the contribution that Arnold Tannenbaum makes favoring the participatory approach within companies goes a little beyond other important exponents of this orientation (Rensis Likert "New patterns of management"; McGraw-Hill - 1961), Donald Cole (already quoted) Carl Frost "The Scanlon plan"; MSU - 1974) in the sense that it discovers an apparent paradox through successive field work and research: "When management operates in a participatory manner, it increases its total degree of control over its subordinates by giving up part of its authority." And this may have arisen when he discovered that the most effective unions are those where both unionists and other members both had - at the same time - greater influence.
It seemed that social participation within an organization was beginning to behave in a special way, having a particular impact on the degree of control; control seemed to be an elastic product or service where everyone could have more. From then on, organizations have to stop thinking that what one gains the other has to lose; Furthermore, the cake (resources to be obtained) is no longer fixed but rather variable, so that everyone in an industrial sector can earn more, provided that the total cake is enlarged.
For Arnold Tannenbaum control is a process by which a person or a group of people influences another person or other groups with which consequent compliance (in terms of Amitai Etzioni: "Modern Organizations"; Prentice Hall - 1964) of the " other part".
There are two main questions to which Arnold Tannebaum tries to find an answer. The first one has to do with how much influence someone in particular has and the second one relates to how much you think it should have. An important finding that Tannenbaum found in his research is related to the "slope in the amount of control", which may or may not be the same, in relation to the other variable studied, which are the "hierarchical levels" divided into managers, supervisors and employees.
The ideal slope - following Arnold Tannebaum - is one that is not very steep, characterized by having the lower levels a degree of participation quite close to the other two hierarchies. Here a new hypothesis emerges: it is possible that the effect of “greater influence” reduces to some extent the negative aspects that originate hierarchies within the organization.
Arnold Tannenbaum found evidence very similar to that of the founding fathers in Organizational Development. The business world in the 60s and 70s of the last century severely criticized some practitioners, academics and researchers in Organizational Development, on the basis of a soft approach of little use to the business and business world.
For example, Chris Argyris was mentioned as a promoter of a movement that the business world came to call the evangelizing movement. Back then, many of the work of experts in organizational change and development were carried out in non-profit organizations with social aims and orientations.
Excellence as a consequence of the results obtained by the practices of change agents specialized in organizational development made the business world "review their words" and turn their eyes to these people - who through organizational development - achieved better results through “non-monetary” incentives to which the organizational participants of private companies were accustomed.
Arnold Tannenbaum found something very similar: productivity in non-profit organizations and entities with members who are “volunteers” is higher than that of paid people within companies in the industrial sector. And this is explained by Tannenbaum under the terms that in this type of organization, and with the participatory approach, it is possible that "all" in general increase their degree of influence as a result of participation.
The apparent paradox - which today is adopted quite widely in the face of the multitude of evidences - where workers and employees can have a greater degree of control and "in addition" supervisors and managers can also have greater control, is lived as a concrete reality. Control is not a game based on the "sum 0" process; everyone can add. We must bear in mind that the leader is also led - under this participatory scheme - and that he also feels comfortable in this situation.
On the other hand, the authoritarian leader who operates under a vision of (sum 0) perceives that the cake is fixed and cannot be increased. Given this perception, the authoritarian leader in order to win needs to increase his control by “taking away” part of the control that the subordinate has of himself. It is easy to see, especially for those who are involved in processes of organizational change and development, that in this way obstacles are added on the road to business efficiency, to say the least.
And an important caveat for those who practice organizational demagoguery. It appears that business efficiency is more related to increasing the degree of control (influence) of all organizational participants rather than distributing and democratizing control among all across different hierarchies. Under this last option, which is adopted by practitioners at the macro level, what is usually achieved is to equal down. The famous business practice of "power equalization" has been attacked in this way very strongly from its own heart.
• Vroom, Victor H.
During the existence of Victor Vroom, a particular theme has been present where it combines two variables that show a strong presence in individual and organizational behavior and especially in the relationship that individuals maintain within organizations. These variables are:
1. Decision making, and
2. Participation.
Since their completion of doctoral studies these variables have been present; his dissertation - like other field studies and research papers - showed evidence where staff participation in decision-making produces positive consequences on both attitudes and motivation. But the singularity of Victor Vroom's thesis (“Some personality determinants of the effects of participation”; Prentice-Hall - 1960 / “A new look at managerial decision making” - 1974 / with PW Yetton: “Leadership and decision making”; University of Pittsburg - 1973 / and with AG Jago: “The new leadership: managing participation in organizations”; Prentice-Hall - 1968)) shows something new, since, as an intervening variable we have certain personal characteristics of people.
Authoritarian people with low needs for "independence" are not significantly affected by the opportunity to participate, while non-authoritarian people with a strong orientation towards independence-autonomy achieve greater participation through decision-making. motivation and better attitude of staff with a positive impact on organizational efficiency.
In later work - and in collaboration with Yetton - the scope of the original work was expanded and the impact on subordinate participation was further studied. Perhaps inspired by the excellent work of Rensis Likert, Vroom and Yetton distinguished different profiles in the superior-subordinate relationship where the participation variable had a greater or lesser influence (In his original work Rensis Likert made mention of four styles but later extended it to five). Two of the styles responded to autocratic processes, two to consultative processes, and the rest to group processes (or teamwork).
And following the distinction set out above, Vroom and Yetton asked two main questions:
What process (of the five mentioned above) is the one that managers should use to increase organizational efficiency?
In turn, this question leads us to the following:
What is the decision-making process that managers in companies actually use on a daily basis?
It is clear that the first question is prescriptive (closer to a formula or recipe) while the second is mostly descriptive.
Vroom and Yetton's work represents a very important and distinctive contribution by distinguishing three kinds of consequences that influence efficiency in decision-making and they are:
The degree of rationality implicit in the decision
The level of acceptance or commitment on the part of the subordinates in order to execute the decision efficiently.
The amount of time it takes to make a decision.
As a consequence, we are in a position to develop a decision-making model where the decision-making process to be used would be defined, so that we can achieve in the minimum time a “decision-making quality” that is acceptable. The interesting thing about the model is that it shows how each of the profiles in the superior-subordinate relationship can be applied in certain circumstances, having the options of: autocracy, consultative and group.
However, the frequency with which each of them should be used must depend on the type of decisions that the manager must make. This normative-prescriptive model suggests that all managers should operate “through” all ranges.
In relation to the second question that has to do with the descriptive, Vroom's work was based on two methodologies and an important finding is that it shows that it makes much more sense to speak of participatory or autocratic situations than to speak of autocratic or participatory managers. Working during a Leadership development program, Vroom compared the decision processes he envisioned in his regulatory model against those executed by managers themselves.
It is interesting to note that the model presents greater variations in decision-making for each situational problem than what the “typical” manager usually does during a work day. Vroom suggests - as a consequence of his model - that during decision-making the manager oriented towards organizational efficiency should train himself to be more autocratic and also more participatory, according to the problem he faces.
