|
According to Birnbaum (1988), the anarchical model exhibits problematic goals, unclear technology, and fluid participation. Problematic goals arise when organizations provide an ambiguous framework for goals or develop goals after, rather than before, programs have been developed. Furthermore, Birnbaum defines technology as the “processes through which organizations convert inputs to outputs” (p. 155). Anarchical organizations have technology in place but are unclear about how the technology contributes to meeting or not meeting goals. Moreover, because there is no clear evidence as to which technology is more effective than another, anarchical organizations choose technology “based on trial and error, previous experiences, imitations, and inventions born of necessity” (p. 156).
Finally, anarchical organizations maintain fluid participation, such that there are various formal and informal committees and groups at multiple levels throughout the organization. For this reason, organizational problems and issues move through one or more levels of the organization for resolution. Moreover, members move throughout parts of the organization, so their participation in an issue depends on what other issues are present that require their attention. Birnbaum (1988) contends that there are few instances in which decisions on two related issues are made by the same people.
Because an organizational chart is not an adequate representation of an anarchical organization, Birnbaum (1988) uses streams of problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities to illustrate how these areas converge in an anarchical organization. Problems arise looking to be resolved, solutions are present looking for issues to which they can solve, and participants are looking for decisions to make. From this situation
emerges choice opportunities that are independent and loosely coupled to the other three streams.
Choice opportunities refer to routine decision making, including approving the annual budget or the appointment of administrators; however, because of problems with specifying goals, the organization cannot determine how best to achieve them or who will participate. The result is garbage-can decision making. The garbage cans represent choice opportunities through which the streams of problems, solutions, and participants flow. In the garbage can, these three streams converge with a particular choice and they become attached, or tightly coupled. This tight coupling is not necessarily logical but dependent on the time at which the decision is made, the availability of other choice opportunities, and the particular problems, solutions, and participants in the garbage can at that time.
According to Birnbaum (1988), “this indeterminacy introduces ambiguity and uncertainty into the decision arena. Decision making becomes increasingly difficult when irrelevant problems and solutions (that is, garbage) becomes attached to choice opportunities” (p.
162).
Thus, decisions are made based on the inferences and judgments people make under conditions of uncertainty, which reflects three decision styles of resolution, flight, and oversight. Resolution involves working through problems rationally until they are resolved. Decision making by flight involves waiting for a more attractive choice opportunity to enter the garbage can that will solve a problem. Lastly, oversight involves quick decision making so that problems and participants have no time to get involved in the decision.
Birnbaum (1988) examines the research of Cohen and March (1974), who developed the anarchical model and eight rules for leaders of anarchical organizations to influence decision making. These include the following: (a) choose a small number of issues to attend to, delegating or ignoring others; (b) persist in decision making, even for failed or unfavorable decisions; (c) focus on substantive outcomes rather than your symbolic status; (d) encourage participation of those who oppose a solution or decision;
flood the organization with proposals to avoid stalled decision making; (f) increase the number of choice opportunities that might prove attractive to problems; (g) identify and implement small changes that when compounded, can have a large effect; and, (e) interpret history to provide context for decision making.
Altogether, anarchical organizations display problematic goals, unclear technology, and fluid participation. Streams of problems, solutions, and participants collide with choice opportunities, which is a process referred to as garbage-can decision making. Because this collision depends on the type of problem, availability of solutions, which participants are involved, and the timing of choice opportunities, decisions are often made with ambiguity and uncertainty. For this reason, decision making is not rational, but particularly advantageous in complex and turbulent environments.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
