Search results

Three rival internal change theories of budgeting have characterized the twentieth century. Internal change theories consider the importance of change made inside governments; exogenous factors do not have a significant bearing on outcomes in these approaches. The century started out with the rational/scientific, then moved to incrementalism by mid to latecentury. The century ended with the garbage can model. This paper tests the descriptive power of each of these models on budget outcome data. The methods used in this study were time series modeling of monthly U.S. national government budget outcomes from 1968 to 1999. The results provide support for both incrementalism and rational/scientific budgeting. There was no support found in this study for the anarchical tendencies associated with the garbage can theory of budgeting. These results suggest that the garbage can model may not deserve its reputation as the dominant budgeting paradigm at the close of the twentieth century.

This paper aims to apply the garbage can model to identify factors that affect managerial decision-making processes in educational systems undergoing reforms.

This paper used a qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews with 39 teachers and managers in schools undergoing a system-wide reform.

The paper presents examples for a typology of decision outcomes found in the model and provides explanations for their emergence. It shows that there are many challenges that are associated with reform implementation and suggests factors that need to be taken into account when planning and implementing a reform.

School management and policy makers can learn about the risks that are associated with garbage can decision-making and the various risk factors. Practical suggestions are given to reduce the probability of suboptimal decision-making.

The rapid fashion swings in popular management theory puzzle and alarm many observers and users of management theory. New concepts arrive, experience a sudden popularity, then flatten out and are soon forgotten or appear old‐fashioned. This article presents a model of such short time management theory fashion swings: The garbage can life cycle model. The model is based on James March’s garbage can model of decision making combined with a life cycle model. The model describes how actors, problems and methods typically are different at four stages in the life cycle of a concept. The model is illustrated with data from quality management. The model does not pass judgement on the inherent qualities of quality management or the need for quality in the economy but seeks to explain what typically happens over time. The article concludes with a short discussion from the perspective of the model of the strategies that the quality movement may use at the present stage: A, retracting into full specialization; B, widening and attaching new fashionable themes to quality management; and C, focusing on its competitive advantages. Strategy C is recommended.

Although there are many models of decision making, there are few attempts to match the appropriate decision strategy with different situations. After reviewing and comparing six contemporary decision‐making models, a framework and propositions are developed that match strategies with circumstances. The article concludes with a discussion of theoretical and practical application of the proposed contingency model decision making.

It is important to understand the organizational structures and decision making processes in the university and their relationship to the CWIS. This article describes, reviews and summarizes March and Cohens’ theories on the university as a structured anarchy. It also raises a list of questions that CWISs struggle with regularly which may be best answered by this theory. A second part of the article describes the companion theory of garbage can decision making proposed by March, Cohen and Olsen. Besides proposing the decision making model, March and Cohen even offer tactics to use in a structured anarchy that can enhance chances of success. Although CWIS problems seem dominated by management of technical questions, the authors feel that the ability to understand the organizational model of an institution and to manage the decision making process may be equally important to success as technical expertise is.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the value of I‐Ching (also called Book of Changes), the ancient Chinese book of wisdom, which has been used for thousands of years to help people make decisions in daily life. Recently, eastern and western scholars have begun discussing how to apply the wisdom of I‐Ching to the field of business administration, particularly decision‐making practices.

A content analysis method was adopted to uncover possible modern management decision‐making constructs. The single words approach did not find frequently appearing words that integrated decision‐making constructs in the context of I‐Ching. Further uncovering I‐Ching's administrative decision‐making approach, the managerial decision‐making model of I‐Ching is explained, including the premises, the decision contingencies, and the decision process.

By using an academic comparative analysis method, as it applies to managerial decision making, I‐Ching's early management decision‐making model is subsequently compared with western management decision models, which include rational decision making, bounded‐rationality decision making, intuitive decision making, implicit favorite decision making, and garbage‐can decision making.

The majority of scholars that study I‐Ching focus on “practice divination” research, paying attention to the interpretation or critique of the text only. Unfortunately, related literature based upon a social science research foundation is limited.

The value of I‐Ching was determined to lie in allowing flexibility in the decision‐making process.

“Rational planning models” emerged in the early 1970's as a means by which to plan more effectively and efficiently in educational organizations. One of the most well known and widely distributed of these models was developed by Phi Delta Kappa, the educational fraternity. This paper describes a field study conducted in five Vermont schools that were “early users” of the Phi Delta Kappa material. The outcomes reveal many discrepancies between the theory and the reality of planning in public schools. In addition to the Vermont research, other research is cited that supports many of the findings and relates them to planning in schools in general. The article concludes by linking the study outcomes to recent works by other authors on the emerging concepts of loosely coupled systems, garbage can organizations, and organized anarchies and implications these concepts hold for alternative approaches to planning in educational settings.

The aim of this article is threefold: the primary aim is conceptual by outlining two ideal-typical ideas about organizational life. These models offer rival ideas about how organizations balance seemingly conflicting patterns of behaviour and change in everyday life. The second ambition of the article is to outline a theoretical approach of organizational life arguing that even fairly loosely coupled organizations may be profoundly patterned by everyday routines as much as by ambiguity. The third and final ambition is to offer empirical illustrations from organizations that are often considered as archetypes of loose coupling and ambiguities: jazz orchestras and university organizations. The empirical discussion, however, illustrates that behaviour and change in these organizations are coined by routines and rules.

Two common dynamics often observed in organizations are highlighted: first, organizations viewed as sets of formal structures and routines that systematically bias organizational performance and change, and secondly, organizations as loosely coupled structures that enable improvisation with respect to organizational performance and change. How organizations live with and practice such seemingly contradictory dynamics is empirically illuminated in two types of organizations that are seldom analysed in tandem – university organizations and jazz orchestras. Drawing on contemporary research on these seemingly contradictory laboratories of organizational analysis, some observations are highlighted that indeed are common to both types of organizations. Furthermore, it is argued that lessons may be drawn from organizations where turbulence is common and where seemingly un-organized processes are quite regular. University organizations and jazz orchestras represent such types of organizations.

First, the degree of ambiguity in organizations is a matter of degree, not an either/or, and that the uncertainty and spontaneity observed in organizational behaviour and change is more patterned than often assumed (see Heimer and Stinchcombe, 1999; Strauss, 1979). As such, organization theory may be a useful extension of the garbage can model, suggesting that streams in decision-making processes may be systematically pre-packed and patterned by the availability of access and attention structures (Cohen et al., 1976). Secondly, scholarship in organizational studies needs to do away with over-simplistic dichotomies when facing complex realities. This challenge is equal for studies of public sector organizations as for scholarship in business and management. Organization studies often face the tyranny of conceptual dichotomies (Olsen, 2007). This article suggests that the distinction between loose and tight coupling in organizations, as between improvisation and pre-planned activities in organizations, face the danger of shoehorning complex data into simple categories. Originality/value – How organizations live with and practice seemingly contradictory dynamics is empirically illuminated in two types of organizations that are seldom analysed in tandem in organizational studies – university organizations and jazz orchestras. These conflicting organizational dynamics pinpoint one classical dilemma in university and jazz life beleaguered on the inherent trade-off between instrumental design and the logic of hierarchy on the one hand, and individual artistic autonomy and professional neutrality on the other. “[T]he purpose of developing the jazz metaphor is to draw out the collaborative, spontaneous and artful aspects of organizing in contradiction to the engineered, planned and controlled models that dominate modern management thoughts” (Hatch, 1999, p. 4). This dilemma highlights competing understandings of organizational life, of institutional change, and of what the pursuit of organizational goals ultimately entails.

The purpose of this paper is to foster a better understanding of how decision-making processes work in sport clubs and to develop appropriate advisory concepts or management tools in order to successfully realize structural changes in sport clubs. This paper examines the decision-making processes associated with an external advisory programme. Based on the assumption of bounded rationality, the garbage can model is used to grasp these decision-making processes theoretically and to access them empirically.

Based on a case study framework, an in-depth analysis of the decision-making and implementation processes involved in an advisory programme was performed in ten selected football clubs. Guided interviews were conducted on the basis of the four streams of the garbage can model. The interviews were analysed with qualitative content analysis.

Results show that three types of club can be distinguished in terms of their implementation processes: low implementation of the external input; partial implementation of the external input; and rigorous implementation of the external input. In addition, the analysis shows that the participants in the advisory programme are the key actors in both the decision-making process and the implementation.

The paper provides insights into the practicability of advisory programmes for sport clubs and the transfer to the clubs’ practical decision-making routines. Additionally, it shows how sport clubs deal with (external) advisory impulses, and which different decision-making practices underlie these processes.

In this paper, the authors look back at James March’s main contributions to the evolution of organizations and their decision-making. No other author in management science has been quoted as much. Yet, his view on these issues is often far removed from the dominant academic representations. This paper aims to evaluate the trace left by March for the future. His teachings remain of the utmost importance for both practitioners and academics in charge of modeling the real functioning of the organizations.

In this paper, the authors look back at James March’s main contributions to the evolution of organizations and their decision-making.

On the basis of an in-depth analysis of his study, the authors discuss the main concepts to which he has dedicated his life as a researcher. Whether it is for innovation and the process of exploration associated with it or for the ambiguity that persists in learning cycles, March always shows us the ambivalence of the concepts. The strength of March’s study is to encourage us to remain cautious in the diagnoses for the development of the companies by not venerating too strongly the notions seen exclusively as virtuous, such as innovation or by not too quickly condemning situations perceived as harmful, such as ambiguity. It is, therefore, subjective and unpredictable, making the idea of a unified theory of management inoperative (Joullié, 2018). March’s way of thinking is deeply postmodern in the sense of Foucault (1961), who saw the world as a representation.

For this kind of paper based on a James March study’s survey, the main limitation is the variety of research methodology mobilized. Empirical confirmation sometimes is missing or is too short. The study remains essentially speculative as to its influence on future research. Some concepts, such as the concept of effectuation, which is a direct extension of March’s study, deserve to be tested empirically and theoretically in greater depth to assess their robustness.

All managerial implications are concerned with organizational change. His teachings remain of the utmost importance for both practitioners and academics in charge of modeling the real functioning of the organizations.

Providing a guideline concerning research in the management of organizations. A better understanding of the real functioning of how decisions happen in companies, how they change in the real world.

The authors show that, contrary to the great paradigms of management sciences (Burrell and Morgan, 1979) developed since Taylor’s founding study, which remains performative in essence, March’s study initiates a viscerally postmodern vision of the organization. The authors believe that his contributions are essential because they are not based on a normative attempt to propose a universal theory but provide a compass that is essential to understanding how the organization study.