This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
It introduces you to the basic features of decision making and organized anarchies. Or what some will call garbage can theory of organizations. During the week on coalition theory, I usually ask students in my classroom to assume the role of different organizations who have a contradictory stake. And an issue like that of the Milwaukee voucher program. Then every group has a pairwise encounter with each other where they apply a variety of exchange techniques. So as to try and forge a dominant coalition behind certain solutions like universal vounchers, targeted vouchers, magnet schools, more funding, class size reduction or do nothing. Every year, the student groups do a great job of playing to their organization's parochial interests and manipulating other organizations into joining some sort of collective resolution. If we look at the slide next to me, we see a variety of stakeholders involved in this process. from low-income parents where vouchers do not cover private school costs. Middle class African-American parents with nearly enough income to afford private school. To religious school leaders, principals for example, or local business leaders and Milwaukee Secretary of Education and the teachers' union representatives. Each of these are stakeholders with different parochial interests, and then below there we had their kind of solutions, and the feasible solutions But they can negotiate over in there pairwise encounters as the groups go through this process of negotiation. What they experience actually goes well beyond what coalition and exchange theories of organizing convey. There's a much more dynamic quality to there discussions and decisions that seem more consistent with an organized
And it's not always clear what that would be. like the educators. After all. for example. They never took up actually in the process like doing nothing. Equity for African-Americans. The same thing occurred for solutions. Groups created additional solutions than those presented in the Milwaukee cil. Some initially propose universal vouchers. only to promote targeted vouchers in the end. Now. And as such the bargaining was in . some of them have a hard time coming up with their group's platform and identity. case. in this context. Also. And then they presented the problems in different orders. Some groups brought up problems that fit their interests. So they bargained for what they thought the other group needed or wanted. achievement levels for businesses. What do I mean that the decision process resembled an organized anarchy? Well. Almost all the groups thought in terms of some kind of identity and parochial interest. problems seem to be brought up in a much more dynamic and contingent manner. For example. Each group tried to make a case why another group's problems would be addressed by their solution. Instead. And they also thought about other identities and interests when trying to manipulate the situation in their favor. while other groups mentioned several kinds of solutions. like problem of choice for Republicans. the solutions were matched with multiple problems here and there and that connection was negotiated. some of the students came up with a sliding scale voucher. and what that entailed. some of the group's proposed solutions change over the course of bargaining. None of the solutions and problems seem to arrive as set pairs. what is the platform for lower income parents in Milwaukee? The case doesn't really convey. And some solutions.anarchy model seem to arise.
problems. Pertains to organized anarchy. This is also what some have called. preferences and identities change and are indeterminate. Technologies or tasks are uncertain and poorly understood. And solutions have only modest connection to the problems presented. Some pairs of groups took longer to finish their exchange and were rushed to make a deal before the time was up. If we look at an actual context of decision waking. Moreover. a garbage can model of organizations. The debates and decisions also followed a temporal dynamic. Many students felt like the ordering of the pair wise meetings greatly effected which bargains arose and which ones were adopted or dropped. and organizational decision making in those contexts. and that seemed to affect the kind of decision outcome. Or they undermined the connections that other groups held. and complexity. And this is what I'll talk about today. opportunities for decisions Ideas and situations and people. solutions. we notice that many things happen at once. policies that exist often go unimplemented. Most organizational theories underestimate the confusion. surrounding actual decision making. Decisions at one time and place have loose relevance to those at others. making. A lot of what I just described here. Some groups even backtracked on prior deals when they saw better solution and coalition emerge later.connecting solutions and problems in a way that convinced over groups. all are mixed together in ways that make their interpretation uncertain and the connections between them unclear. Some of the students got up and went to the restroom and their voice was lost in pushing for certain problems and solutions. in our lecture. They aren't even brought up and decision makers wander in and out of decision arenas saying .
And this is where we rely on the theory of [INAUDIBLE].one thing and doing another. causality. which they called Garbage Can theory. and it describes a more chaotic reality of organizational decision making. conceptions of order. here we have the basic idea of Cohen March and Olsen. for problems they can latch to. the sol. they become meaningful meaning generators instead of consequence generators. So. issues that they're going to deal with. Those are like meetings. They aren't outcomes produced by a comprehensible environment. an organization is a collection of choices. and intentionality. one can view a choice opportunity or meeting with decisions as a garbage can into which various kinds of problems and solutions are dumped by participants as they are generated. Looking for problems. and then decision makers are constantly looking for work. as we increase the complexity of decisions situations so they move closer to reality. So if we look here in the slide next to me. And then issues and feelings. Here. Hence. And then the solutions within those arenas are looking for issues. the kind of problems or looking for decision situations or choice meetings in which they can be aired. Concerning reality. the story of decision making moves away from concession. Where within the garbage can we throw all these problems solutions and participants all these flows of things . from the perspective of organized anarchy. is there any theory that would help us get beyond interpretive detail contextualize accounts of ethnographies. That describes organized anarchy in a relatively simple model. the decisions that occur in organized anarchy are seen as vehicles for constructing meaningful interpretions of fundamentally confusing worlds. to conceptions of meaning. So with all this ambiguity. So. So we have to ask at this point given the chaos.
so that we see these shifts into a different kind of. Many different people. try to kick whatever ball comes near them. Now listen to this and follow the quote to. . And once that happens the particular junctures under certain deadlines we have certain kinds of decisions or decisions that are making sense of something and meaning making. Consider a round. garbage can theory suggests the following possible metaphor for decision making within an organization.that collide in the can. And what goals are reached. Individuals while they're in the game. or remove them. After the fact. Taken in broad perspective. sloped. multi-goal. And how the balls fall. Right. of game. goal soccer field on which individuals play soccer. they may look obvious. next to me here because it's very interesting to think in terms of this way. So this is basically what Jim March is saying. Some people can throw balls in the game. and away from goals they wish to avoid. And usually normatively reassuring. in the direction to goals they like. and world full of complexity and dynamics. but not everyone. but the course of a specific decision and the actual outcomes are not easily anticipated. and you can imagine the kind of field distorted in various ways. can join the game or leave it at different times.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.