The garbage can model of decision making

So far in this chapter several approaches to organizational decision making have been considered:
the rational approach, which assumed that objectives and the means of achieving them could be
clearly identified; the administrative one, proposing that organizational decision making is a
product of bounded rationality; and incrementalism, introducing the notion of mutual adjustment
and gradual change.
These approaches assume a clear linkage between goals, people and solutions. ichael
!ohen, "ames arch and "on #lsen $%&'() argue that this cannot always be assumed and that
some organizations display characteristics of what they call *organized anarchy+. The
characteristics of organized anarchy are problematic goals, unclear technology $all sorts of
methods are likely to be used to make decisions) and fluid $member) participation. !ohen et al.
have noted that under such conditions, where clear criteria of choice are absent, e,traneous
matters tend to get lumped into the decision-making process, and solutions often bear little
relation to problems. They have appropriately labelled this phenomenon *the garbage can model
of organization decision making+.
.nder conditions of organized anarchy, it is not clear when an issue arises whether it is a
problem or a solution to a problem. / collection of such issues is what !ohen et al. refer to as the
*garbage can+. Through a process of jumbled decision making, problems and solutions become
linked together so that a problem in one area becomes a solution in another.
For example, a university administration was moving to new premises elsewhere in the
city and the question arose of what was to be done about the vacated premises. Ostensibly,
this was a problem for the university. Elsewhere within the university there were moves to
establish a new school of technology. One of the objections to this proposal had been the
lack of suitable premises. fter some discussion, it was decided that the new school would be
established and that it would be located in the vacated premises.
!hile this decision seems, superficially, sensible, in the absence of clear choice criteria
such as "will it add to our surplus #profit$%&, it was neither optimi'ing #as in the rational
model$ nor satisficing #as in the bureaucratic model$. (t was a reaction to circumstances by
those who happened at that time to be on key committees #i.e. in fluid membership$. )o one
asked critical questions, such as whether or not the new school was really required, whether
the old premises were the best location for the proposed school, or what the effect would be
on the budget.
*hese two issues, that is, the vacant premises and the proposed new school, were
simultaneously problems and solutions. *he decision was made by turning each of the issues
into a solution for the other. ccording to the garbage can theory of decision making,
therefore, the factors that influence decision making in organi'ations are the range of issues
cum solutions cum problems that happen to be in the garbage can at a particular time and
the total demands upon the decision makers at that time. (n comparison with the rational
and administrative models of decision making, the garbage can model could be said to be
based on "circumstantial& rationality.
/ noticeable difficulty with the model is its failure to account for the political activity of
participants who encourage conditions of organized anarchy, or who e,ploit them for particular
advantage. 0owever, the approach does help us appreciate why decisions in organizations are not
always *rational+ in an absolute or objective sense. 1n fact, 2unnar 3esterlund and Sven-4rik
Sj5strand believe that the garbage can approach to decision making e,poses one of the most
popular myths in organizations, the myth of the rational organization. They suggest that the
rational process of decision making clouds the fact that the choice of problems and methods of
handling them are largely influenced by the personal preferences, values and e,pectations of
decision makers. 3hat is often thought of as *rational+ simply depends on for whom it has to
appear as being such $3esterlund and Sj5strand %&'&: &678).
The garbage can model also highlights ritualistic decision-making activities. 9or e,ample,
research has shown that not all problems lead to efforts to reach decisions that might solve them.
:ecision making often has to be forced on individuals who actively seek to avoid handling a
problem as shown in the cases cited at the beginning of the chapter. 4ven though decisions are
made, they may not be e,ecuted because someone may feel uncomfortable with the decision or it
can be safely deferred $3esterlund and Sj5strand %&'&: &&). arch $%&;<, %&;', %&;;) has
e,panded on the ritualistic nature of decision making by proposing that much of what we observe
about it is not so much concerned with how choices are made but how individuals interpret and
justify their choices to others. 0e argues that most decision making is only incidentally about
weighing up and evaluating choice criteria. =ather, decision-making sessions are often about how
decision makers define the virtues and correctness of their choices, trying to make sense of what
they have done and justifying future actions $see also "ackall %&;;). The prime resource they
mobilise to accomplish this is the imagery of rationality derived from the rational model and its
antecedents in classical management and economic theory.
:ecision-making events can also provide arenas for apportioning glory and blame. They
create opportunities for reaffirming old alliances, friendships, antagonisms and power and status
differences. arch believes that these ritualistic aspects of decision making are useful for
*training+ or *educating+ new recruits into the ways of the company. 9urthermore, he says,
decision-making processes can be a source of enjoyment and a way of having a good time while
one learns the meanings of organizational life $arch %&;<: &8).
There is another sense in which the garbage can approach has had a profound effect on the
ways in which decision making is considered. arch $%&'8) continued his criticisms of the
rational model, but from a slightly different angle than is found in the garbage can approach.
arch entered a plea for incorporating what he calls *playfulness+ and sensible foolishness into
decision-making processes. 0e wanted to see organizations encouraging untried or novel ideas
and using intuition to address problems and make decisions $somewhat akin to 4dward :e
>ono+s $%&&6) notion of *lateral thinking+). These propositions were taken up by Tom ?eters and
=obert 3aterman $%&;(@;<) who argued that entrepreneurship and innovation could only occur
on a grand scale if organizational leaders loosen up their control and coordination mechanisms,
thereby encouraging e,perimentation and risk taking, that is, playfulness and foolishness $?eters
and 3aterman %&;(@;<: (&7A<, %6%). 0owever, arch, along with ?eters and 3aterman,
recognized that more playful organizations were only feasible if widely held misconceptions or
myths about rational decision making were tackled by senior managers.