Models of Decision Making- Administrative Behaviour

Decision Making

Today, we will start with Administrative Behaviour. Under this topic,we will first discuss the processes and techniques of decision-making. Hope you find it useful.
To start with, I will give a broad overview of the models prevalent in the decision making.

Models of Decision Making

These models are the models of public policy making as well.

1.    Institutional- It is emphasized that decisions within the government are made by various agencies and members of the government. The existence or non-existence of a decision within the government is because of the existence or non-existence of certain agencies within the government. Also, the nature of the decision is also defined by the nature of the agency.

This model provides a very simplistic idea about the decision making process within the government. It is simply discounting the influence of any other agency or body other than the agencies within the government. It has not been able to understand the complex dynamism/mechanism of decision making within the government. Thus, this model has not taken into account the role of non-state institutions in the process of decision making.

2.      Group- This model emphasizes that there are number of groups within the society. Each of these groups carries their respective interests. These groups, in order to protect and promote their interest, put pressure on the government for favourable decisions. Also, these groups are of varying strengths. The state makes the decision under the pressure exerted by these groups and the final decision is basically the view of the strongest group.

This model is also too simplistic because it ignores the autonomous role of the state and at the same time, it also ignores the influence by other multiple groups.

3.    Pluralist- This model also emphasizes that in a society, there are a number of groups. These groups carry their respective interests and in order to protect and promote their interests, they try to put pressure on the government to get a favourable decision. Again, these groups are of varying strengths.

This model says that the state plays the role of the umpire or an impartial referee. Thereby, it provides a platform for negotiation/interaction to take place. Finally, the decision is the by-product of the influences exerted by the groups but in order of their strength.

The Neo-Pluralist Theory has come with a different analysis and certain new dimensions (Robert Dahl, Charles Lindbloom etc.). It says that the though the state acts as a referee yet the state does not remain impartial or neutral rather the members of the state themselves constitute few of the most powerful interest groups. These groups are actively involved in the process of decision making. Of all these groups in the society, the Industrialists/Corporate Group is the most powerful group because they are responsible for most of the employment.

This model is considered to be one of the most acceptable models to explain the process of decision making within the government.

4.      Elite- Elite refers to a minority in the society which is distinguished from the masses based on its privileges, power, style and standard of living. Who all constitute the Elites is a highly debatable question and at the same time, Elite in a particular society might not be Elite in some other society.

C.Wright Mills has discussed about Elites in her work “The Power Elite”. This work holds good mostly in the context of USA. He says that there are a number of institutions in a society and of all these, three institutions can be considered to be the vital institutions of the society (Business, Politics and Military). All those who occupy key positions in these three institutions together constitute Elite. He believes that Elite might belong to a different profession but irrespective of their profession, they are very homogenous in terms of their nature and culture.

This theory is emphasizing that in the modern democracy, the decisions are actually made by the Elite. Only those decisions escape the capture of the Elite which does not concern the interest of the Elite.

5.     Marxist- This model emphasizes that the decisions in the government are made by the state as being the executive committee of the dominant class or the bourgeois. Thereby, the dominant captures the state. The decisions taken in this regard are taken to protect and perpetuate the interest of the dominant.

The Neo-Marxism differs from this fundamentalist Marxism or Vulgar Marxism. Subsequent theorists who followed the conflict perspective are termed as Neo-Marxists (Althusser, Paulantzas and Gramsci etc.). These theorists emphasized that in a society there are many classes and not just two classes as was propounded by Marx such as Bourgeois, petty Bourgeois, White Collar Jobs, Blue Collar Jobs, Skilled Workers, Semi-Skilled Workers etc. Each of these classes has their respective interests. In order to protect and perpetuate their interest, they pressurize the state. None of these groups is in a position to completely capture the state. As a result of which, the state gains in autonomy or the state becomes relatively autonomous. Being relatively autonomous, the state makes decisions and at times, it might make decisions contrary to the Bourgeois. The state makes decisions while remaining within the overall domain of Capitalism.

6.      Rational- It is also known as the Root model of the decision making. It is an economic model of decision making which is based on the premise that an issue should find closure based on absolute rationality. All the data and information relating to the product should be considered and with regard to the problem, subsequent to that all the strategies relating to it should be evolved. The strategy designed based on the accurate power of prediction is to be evaluated and on the criteria of relative effectiveness, a strategy should be chosen which should be the best among the best. This model emphasizes on Cost-Benefit Analysis.

But, this idea has been contested by Simon. He says that this is not possible because it presupposes the infinite capacity of the decision makers and the decision makers are bounded by limitations. That is why, he emphasizes on bounded rationality as against the absolute rationality.

7.     Incremental- The philosophy of Incrementalism has been propounded by theorists like Charles Lindbloom. He emphasizes that the decision making within the government is not based on root model rather it is based on a branch model. The decision within the government is not taken based on a detailed rational consideration and thereby, the decisions are not new rather the existing decisions are continued with limited or little changes. The decisions are only marginally incremental over the existing decisions. They are not radical shifts from the existing decisions.

The incremental decision making in the government is because of the problem of

a.      Sunk Cost- The cost which is incurred when an investment goes in vain because of a subsequent investment taking place over the same subject-matter.

b.      Problem of Consequences- Decision making in rational model is based on detailed analysis, if the decision goes wrong, there will be a radical shift from the existing trend and the negative impacts will be humongous. The fear of consequences inhibits the decision maker to refrain from adopting the root model.

c.     The problem of vested interest and adaptation- The individuals within the organization need to reorient their value which requires adaptation by individuals towards the new set of requirements. The adaptation will attract a different value system and a different working environment which might lead to resistance within the members of the organization.

These marginal increments are based on Mutual Partisan Adjustment Approach. Whatever limited change that is brought in is also not based on rational consideration. These marginal changes are based on the adjustment which is reached by various interest groups which are competing with each other or trying to influence the decision making.

That is why Lindbloom’s model is also referred to as Disjointed Incremental Model or a Science of Muddling Through.

The model of Logical Incrementalism by Quinn tried to improve upon the Disjointed Incremental Model. Quinn is emphasizing that the decision within the government should be taken with limited improvement over the existing decision but while remaining within the long term objective or the long term goal. Also, these marginal changes should also be rational changes.

8.      Mixed Scanning- This model is given by Amitai Etaioni. While trying to address the limitations of both, this model has attempted to combine the advantages of the Rational Model and the Incremental Model. Under this, the emphasis is on undertaking a broad study or a generalized overview of the problem under consideration and based on this generalized broad overview, the critical factors or the most important factors relevant to the problem are to be identified. These critical factors have to be studied in detail to find out the solution for the problem. The decision will be limited in nature because an absolute decision is possible only when all the data is considered which is very unlikely.

9.      Garbage Can- This model emphasizes that the decision making within the government are not based on rational calculation rather is temporal or accidental in nature. Decision making within the government is chaotic or a random exercise. The decisions within the government are not based on systematized planning or deliberate planning. Within the government, there are a number of decision makers, but neither the problem nor the solution nor the decision makers are static. Government is a loosely organized organization because of which many problems emerge. Many of these problems become important problems or many of them lose their importance or many decision makers emerge or many decision makers leave the scene or many solutions emerge or many of the solutions disappear. The decision making within the government is a very complex process and not smoothly rational. Within the government, sometimes the problems chase the solution and vice versa. The decision making takes place when the problem is recognized by the decision makers and a possible solution is available and is being supported by a conducive situation or environment. Most of the times, these situations do not converge, that is why many obvious, expected or important decision within the government are not taken and many remote and unexpected decisions are taken.

This model also says that within the government certain decisions might be planned or based on rational calculation.

Kingdon suggested a new model in 2003 called as Revised Garbage Can Model.  He hardly modified the model rather his model is a systematization of the existing garbage can model. He emphasized that decisions within the government take place when the three streams i.e. the Problem Stream, the Political Stream and the Policy Stream converge. With the convergence of these streams, the political window widens and the decisions are taken. Problem stream refers to various problems those are seeking attention for the decision. The political stream refers to the public opinion, political support, favourable election results or a conducive environment etc. Policy stream refers to the political decision makers, administrators, researchers etc.

10.  Normative-Optimal- Refer to the models on Policy making.

11.  Public Choice- Refer to the models on Policy making.

12. Game Theory- This theory is primarily used to explain decision making in a competitive environment. In a competitive environment, a decision maker does not fully or partially controls the consequences. The consequences are also dependant on the decisions made by the others present within the decision making arena. The decision maker should try to analyse all the possible consequences and the final decision should be made while avoiding the extremes.

A new model has been propounded recently which is a mix of all the above mentioned models. No single model can fully explain the entirety of the decision making within the -government.