Issues of Organisation - Volume 1 - DECISION-MAKING

The Pitfalls of Rationality

The model of the rational decision is indeed an illusion. It is based on premises and requirements that are simply
impossible to put into practice. In this sense, it is a myth. Just like any myth, however, it has been a driving force:
people have used it as an instrument of action. For one, they have used it as a heuristic model in order to structure
their thinking about action. In doing so, they have applied it to reality, attempting to create the structural conditions
that would allow individual and organizational decisions and processes to respect some of its requirements. In
these attempts, the critique generated by the work on the bounds of rationality has played a major role. By
empirically exploring the different dimensions of decision processes in the real world, they have made a significant
contribution to the rationalization of individual and collective decision processes. Despite its lack of realism, the
model has nonetheless led to great progress, and this should not be denied or minimized.

Like any instrument for action, however, rationality has its costs. It tends to imprison us in a kind of purely
instrumental reasoning, one which excludes any reflection upon values and puts excessive emphasis on the idea
that calculation, intentionality and analytical thought are the only legitimate bases for reasoning. In so doing,
rationality tends to disqualify and neglect other forms of intelligence, such as learning through trial and error,
imitation, simple rule following (Brunsson-1), imagination (March-Crozier-2) or what Peter Drucker calls “
perceptivity,” which is a major ingredient for diagnostic activities (Drucker-3). The characteristics of rationality
favor myopic action because they have us overstress the measurable and the calculable (March-4) or, to express
it differently, because they have us keep to what we already know and to areas in which we are already competent
(March-5). And since it does not take into account the tensions between decisions and actions, it can become
an impediment to action (Brunsson-6). Last but not least, it says nothing about goals and how to generate
interesting and valuable end results.

Therefore, we must accept rationality for what it is, namely an instrument for action, but without becoming its
prisoner and without granting it undue privilege. How can this be done? There is no simple solution, but there are
different possibilities to explore. First of all, it seems necessary to relax somewhat the constraints of rationality and
analytical thinking. Thus, it might be advisable to reconsider error and ignorance, for they can be, and often are,
means for discovering and exploring new and possibly more interesting ways of doing things (March-7). We
should also look differently at prescriptions that argue for consistency between our values and our behavior,
between our goals and our actions. A certain amount of inconsistency between our discourse, our decisions and
our actions can be desirable, and even necessary, as a means of exploration (March-8). If this is so, then we also
have to reconsider our negative appraisal of hypocrisy. It can be viewed as a means of exploration and action on
both the individual (March-9) and organizational levels (Brunsson-10). By the same token, it would be
advisable to diversify the ways in which we justify and legitimize our actions (March-11). Basically, this means
constructing organizations that 1) allow for the co-existence of divergent logics of action (March-12), 2) organize
slow learning cycles (March-13), and 3) leave room for what March calls a “technology of foolishness,” providing
people with the possibility of experimenting with behavior for which they do not yet have a rational justification
(March-14). What it really boils down to is this: beware lest rationality become a straightjacket for the mind.
Decision-making can be helped by rationality, but it can never be reduced to mere rational choice (March-15)
because it is also all about innovation and invention, it is all about a bet on an uncertain future (Reynaud-16).

© 2005 Banlieues Media