THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROCEDURAL MODEL FOR DECISION" MAKING . AND IIs COMPARISON szH THE :2 PRACTICES USED BY ‘ POLICE. AGMINIEIRAIGRE Thesis for flu Degree of 'M. 5,. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSE“, , Albert A. Ackerman. - 1964 ' , lllll”Hill”lllllllllHlllfllllllllllllllllllfllllll!Illllllll * 31293 10401 4950 LIBRARY ., Michigan State University THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROCEDURAL MODEL FOR DECISION-MAKING AND ITS COMPARISON HIT}! THE PRACTICES USED BY POLICE AIMINISTRATORS by ALBERT A. ACKERMAN AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Social Science Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Police Administration and Public Safety 1964 APPR 0V3 D %¢kflm%n- an %/ éw/é/fl/Egk MemBer ABSTRACT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROCNDURAI.MODEL FOR DECISION-MAKING'AND ITS COMPARISON WITH THE PRACTICES USED BY POLICE ADMINISTRATORS by Albert A. Ackerman The police organization needs c§2§Dl§_§9ElElS11ators to allow it to fulfill its reSponsibility to society. The most important function that a police administrator has is the making of decisions. In reviewing the litera- ture on decision-making, and researching the decision- making practices followed by police executives, it be- came apparent, to the author, that there was a need to explore the process known as decision-making in an effort to provide guidelines for the practical decision-maker to use in his daily operations. The basic hypothesis of this research is that the procedural model for decision-making, which is offered herein, is valid and can be supported by the literature and logical reasoning. To accomplish the aims of this study a procedural model for decision-making was con- structed and explained. The literature in the field was reviewed and compared with the model. Case histories were developed from empirical situations and decisions which were selected from police departments within Michigan. This field research included the interviewing Albert A. Acherman of police executives in an effort to determine how they arrive at their decisions. The findings indicated that the nine-step procedural model was supported by the literature. An analysis of the empirical data revealed that the use of the proposed model might have increased the quality of the police administrators' decisions; at the very least, it would have allowed them to avoid certain pitfalls. The study suggests that police administrators should take a greater interest in decision-making processes; particularly in increasing their capacity to make decisions. THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PRCCEDURAI.MODEL FOR DECISION-MAKING AN£>ITS COMPARISON WITH THE PRACTICES USED BY POLICE AIMINISTRATORS by ‘ . 1 . Albert AJ'AcKerman A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Police Administration and Public Safety 1964 6351533 ED 8/501/ ACKN OI‘JIE DGVIENTS Ll waldilike tsexpress .mx irrefcundithsnks 1:0 The Provost Marshal General of the Military Police Corps, and the United States Army, for making this period of advanced study possible. My sincere appreciation to Mr. Raymond T. Galvin, my thesis advisor, for his time, effort, and many worth- while suggestions. My thanks to the police administrators who were most helpful in providing the empirical data for this study. My Special thanks to my wife, Isabel, for her assis-~ tance, encouragement and understanding during the course of this research. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Importance of the Study 3 SGOpe of the Study 4 Terms Used and their Definitions 5 Decision 5 Decision-making Process 5 Rational Decision-making 6 Rational Decision 6 Judgment 6 Middle-Management 6 Organization of the Remainder of the Study 6 Sources of Information 7 11. CONSTRUCTION OF A PROCEDURAL MODEL FOR DECISION-MAKING 8 Decision-Making Process Model 10 Explanation of the Model 11 Step #1 11 Step #2 11 Step #3. 12 Step #4 15 Step #5 is CHAPTER III. IV. Step #6 Step #7 Step #8 Step #9 REVIEW AND ANAIXSIS OF THE LITERATURE General Review Role of Administrative Theory and the Administrator Rationality in Incision-Making Economic Man vs Administrative Man Automatic Data Processing and Escision-Making Improvement of Decision-Making Ability Analysis of IBcision-Making Models Comparison of Literature with the PrOposed Model CASES FROM.MICHIGAN POLICE DEPARTMENTS Methodology Case Histories Case Case Case Case Case Case History History History History History History No. No. No. No. No. No. OUTPUJNH PAGE 15 16 16 17 18 18 18 21 25 29 31 45 6O 6O 62 63 65 70 72 74 CHAPTER Case History Case History Case History Case History Case History Case History Case History Case History Case History No. No. No. No. N0. N0. No. No. No. General Findings 10 11 12 13 14 V. SUMMARY ANIJCONCIUSIONS Summary Summary of the Literature on Incision- Making Analysis of the Field Data Conclusions Comparison of the Literature with the Model PAGE 78 80 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 97 97 98 99 99 Comparison of the Field Data with the Model 100 Final Conclusions Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY APPEN DIX A. Interview Guide 101 102 104 114 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Worksheet l4 2. Diagram of a Model for a Perfect Rational Decision 41 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Governments have been established to allow our com- plex society to function in an orderly manner, rather than in a state of chaos. These governments have promulgated rules and regulations to achieve an orderly society; the enforcement agency for these rules and regulations is the police. The police organization, in order to be able to per- form its Job effectively, must have a functional hierarchy of organization and capable police administrators. The most important job a police administrator has is to make decisions. How he makes these decisions or how he should make them is a question that is often asked. The answers, when offered, vary from "a hunch" to game theory and linear programming. This thesis will be concerned with how the police ad- ministrators make their decisions; the construction of a decision-making model which police administrators may use in the daily operations of their departments; the literature available in the field of decision-making; and case histor- ies relating to the decision-making processes used by police administrators within the state of Michigan. The public judges a police department by the contacts it has with the members of the department. These police officers when dealing with the public are usually acting in accordance with departmental policy. This policy is directly controlled by the quality of the decisions which are made concerning it. An improvement in the technique of decision-making should lead police administrators to- ward the establishment of better policies, which in turn will result in better performance by the police officers, who establish the department's reputation by their contacts with the public. I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM It was the purpose of this study (1) to construct a procedural model for decision-making; (2) to review the existing literature in the field and compare it with the procedural model, to determine if it will support or re- ject the model; and (3) a comparison of the model with actual decisions made within several Michigan police de- partments. The basic hypothesis of this research is that the pro- cedural model for decision-making, which is offered in Chapter II, is valid and can be supported by the literature and logical reasoning.l An effort wif1 be made to test the model by collecting field data from the various police de- partments, however, a word of caution is necessary. The The comparison of actual pchtices with the model does not permit acceptance or rejection of the model. It cannot be assumed that the procedures which the administrators follow in their decision-making are necessarily correct, even if tM3 resulting decisions produce excellent results. There are three key questions which the study will attempt to answer: 1. Is the proposed model a valid procedure to accom- plish rational decision-making? 2. Did the police administrators, whose cases were analyzed, follow a rational procedure to arrive at their decisions? 3. Would adherence to the model have increased or de- creased the factors considered in arriving at a decision by the police administrators? Conclusions will be develOped after the hypothesis has been tested and the key questions have been analyzed. II. IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY It need only be realized that every action that takes place was preceded by a decision to act, and the role of a decision in "getting things done" will become apparent. Administration would be impossible without the de- cision-maker who makes it effective. The value of this study will rest with the use that police administrators make of the procedural model which was constructed, and the extent to which it helped the administrator become more effective in his primary role-- as a decision-maker. Police decision-makers must strive for excellence in the Operation of their departments if they are to keep abreast of the other divisions of government. The police executive through the demonstration of his administrative abilities can do much toward increasing the prestige of, and rSSpect for law enforcement.’ III. SCOPE OF'THE STUDY The scope of this research will be limited as indicat- ed below: 1. A procedural model for decision-making will be constructed. Although the model should be valid for any decision-making situation, in its development the follow- ing assumptions were made: A a. The situation will allow adequate time to follow a rational procedure in arriving at a decision. b. The situation will be concerned with an area for which Specific policy guidance does not exist. The de- ncision will in fact determine future policy. L c. That the decision is being made at the prOper level. That the person making the decision is acting within his scope of reSponsibility and authority, and that he also has the information, or means of obtaining it, needed for a rational conSideration of the question involved. 2. The literature reviewed for the comparison will be limited to published books and articles on the subject. :13; The empirical situations and decisions selected for comparison will come from city (50,000 - 100,000 pop? ulation) police departments within the state of Michigan. The police administrator interviewed will be at the middle- management level of the department. IV. TERMS USED AND THEIR DEFINITIONS To insure that the thesis is clearly understood, several terms will be defined in the light of how they are herein used. The definitions themselves will not be re- ferenced as they are the combinations of many ideas in the field, in addition to the viSWpoints of the author. Dis- cussion later in the study will adequately identify the main sources for these definitions. Qggisigg. A decision is the selection of a possible _course of action or the selection not to act when confront- ed with a problem or question. Decision-making prggegs. The decision-making process includes all the measures taken to arrive at a decision and to insure its implementation. It starts when the decision- maker becomes aware of and identifies the problem and ter- minates with the action following the decision, including the supervision of the results. Rgtional Decisiog-makigg. A technique for making de- cisions based on the decision-maker's ability to reason logically, as by drawing conclusions from inferences. Ideally it means the absence of emotionalism when making the decision. It will be discussed later, but should be noted now, that the rationality of an individual is limited; therefore the procedures followed to arrive at a decision are at best only partly rational. Rational gggigigg.' A decision is rational if the alternative selected will accomplish the goal sought by the decision-maker. igfigmgnt. A judgment is an estimate of an existing or future condition or situation. Middle-Management. All the empirical cases will come from police departments; middle-management in a police de- partment will be construed to mean from just above the Desk Sergeant to just below the Chief in the hierarchial structure of the department. _ v.4, ORGANIZATION or Tm REMAINDER OF THE STUDY Lihg remainder of this research is divided into four “additional chapters as followsgl _EEFPP¢EIIIJW411 present the development and ex- planation of the procedural model for decision-making.f Chapter III presents a review of the literature and an analysis of the comparison between the literature and the model. Chapter IV is devoted to the field research con- ducted, including the methodology, empirical data gathered, and the findings. Chapter V will present a summary of the study and a deveIOpment of the conclusions. yi. _ SOURCES or INFORMATION (m ;§he¢primarysources of information came from library research and empirical research,j Ob" TIn the library research an effort was made to find literature on the theoretical aSpects of decisiongmaking, .H? well aswwritingsfion/practical decision-making problems. Most,of the information came from books and professional journals, particularly in the fields of business, sociology, economics, and psychology. Specific sources will be I accredited throughout the Study. ”The empirical studies were conducted through personal interviews in several city police departments within the state of Michigan. The cities chosen had a population be- tween 50,000 and 100,000. CHAPTER II CONSTRUCTION OF A PROCEDURAL MODEL FOR DECISION-MAKING "Why should a decision-making model be necessary, decisions are so commonplace, everyone knows how they make them?” This statement couldn't be further from the truth. The following were the comments made by businessmen in response to a question by John McDonaldl, on how they arrived at their decisions: Charles 99x, president of Kennecott Copper, says, "I don't think businessmen know how they make decisions. I know I don't." \Charles Dickey, chairman of the executive committee of J. P. Morgan Company, says, "There are no rules." Benjamin Fairless, ex-chairman of United States Steel: "You don't know how you do it; you just do it." John McCaffrey, president of International Harvester: ”It is like asking a pro baseball player to define the swing that has always come natural to him." DWight Joyce, president of Glidden Company, says, "If a vice president asked me how I was able to choose the right course, I'd have to say, 'I'm damned if I know.'” When he was asked, "How do you make your decisions?" lJohnlMcDonald, "How Businessmen Make {boisions," Fortune, 52 (August, 1955), p. 85. (.0 by Robert Morellz, William M. Day, president of Michigan Bell Telephone Company, replied, "I don't think we know how we make our decisions." ¥\In these examples some of the most successful ad- ministrators in the country readily admit that they don't know just how they make their decisions, that they just make them. For any administrator who desires to improve his de- cision-making ability it becomes necessary to follow a logical improvement program from some starting point. The starting point should ge with what he does now; however, Lashes been shown, he is unlikely to know what he is doing now. Were the administrator to use as hisbase point a procedural model he would be able to checkon his progress and logically build on his experience by the use of a con- sistent approach to problem-analysis and decision-making. The primary purpose for the model that is offered here is that it be used as a toolthrough which police admin; istrators can analyze their present decision-making proce- dures; as well as being a guide tc_future decisiongmaking. It goes without saying that the more adequate the decisions, the more adequate the police service will be. [J’n\ i\3éobert W. Morell, Managerial IBcisigg-Makigg (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960), p. 2. l0 The author is not attempting to convert "successful decision-makers" into users of the model. It is offered as a guide to those who desire to improve their decision- making ability. The procedural model for decision-making will now be presented; it will be followed by an explanation of the various phases of the model. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. DECISION-MAKING PROCESS MODEL Ibfine the problem or questionable situation clearly. IBtermine the goal or desired results. ravelopment of alternatives which are capable of achieving the goal. Analysis of the alternatives. .gvaluating the alternatives in light of {Eeir desired“ pegglt§_and unwanted consequences.b DECISION - Selection of the alternative which maximizes the desired results and minimizes the undesirable_re- sults, while allowing a high probability of successful implementation. Issue the communications necessary to start the action which will implement the decision. §upervise the implementation of the decision,g Wheg results indicate that the decision can be improved, take the available information.and re-enter the model at step #5. Adjust the original decision as necessary. ll EXPMJATION OF THE MODEL Although the listing of the procedural steps is self- descriptive, a further explanation will be offered to in- sure the understanding of the author's concept of each step. The information provided will not be exhaustive, but should provide adequate guidelines for the proper use of the model. gtgp fi_. Defining £22 Situation. Most problems are so complex that they can never be completely analyzed. While it is not necessary to identify every detail of the situation, it is necessary to be able to identify the real problem. This will take some digging into the situation; too superficial an analysis may reveal an apparent problem, but solving the apparent problem will not meet the needs of the situation. The real problem must be sought and found. “PThe problem should be stated in a precise, realistic -%manner so that it can be clearly understood and that it will iallow intelligent pursuance of the remaining steps of the imoéel; After identifying and stating the problem, assume that 5t§ewprohlem stated has been completely solved, then ask (yourself if this would correct or solve the situation you (were confronted with; if not you have not uncovered the irealnproblem.5 "Wm-twm Step fig. [Determining Goals. The goal is what you l2 want to get done. Once the real problem has been recognized, a goal which will solve the situation must be determined. The goal de- cided upon should: 1. Satisfactorily correct or solve the situation. 2. Be attainable with the resources available. 3. Be ethically acceptable in our environment. Step 13, Ibveloping:§ltg£natives. A deveIOpment of possible solutions to the situation which are within the capability of the resources available and which are capable of meeting our goal. Research and information gathering are of primary concern here. Although it can never be ascertained that all the possible alternatives have been uncovered, an effort must be made to deveIOp as many as time and economy will permit. Information sources for the development of alternatives may come from: 1. Facts known to the decision-maker. 2. Facts unknown to the decision-maker, but he knows that the information is available. 5. Facts, as well as their availability, unknown to the decision-maker, which are supplied to him by others during the quest for information. 4. Creative thinking by the decision-maker and others. lb 5. Alternatives which come to light during the search for information. 6. Judgments made by the decision-maker. 7. Judgments made by others and accepted by the decision-maker. 8. Recognition that an area of uncertainty will exist. gtgp {3. Analyzing Alternatives. It is recommended that this step especially be done in writing or schemati- cally. This will aid in further analysis. A worksheet would be very useful for this purpose; for an example form see Figure l. The following is a guide that may be used for the analysis of the alternatives: 1. Take each alternative and list what is factually known will happen if it is adopted. 2. Take each alternative and list what is estimated will happen if it is adopted. An estimate regarding the degree of probability of the results should also be made. 5. Taking each alternative, along with what is known will happen and what is estimated will occur, pro- ject both the wanted and unwanted consequences of it. §§gp {5. Evaluating Alternatives. Now take the list of alternatives, along with the wanted and unwanted con- sequences which were develOped, and evaluate them with the l4 WORKSHEET Alternative No. . If this alternative is pursued the following: 1. Will happen (fact) 2. Should happen (estimate) Degree of Probability a. b. c. d. The consequences of this alternative are: 1. Wanted a. b. c. d. 2. Unwanted FIGURE I 15 view toward determining the order in which they will produce the most desired results and the least undesired results. This can be considered a form of weighting the con- however sequences a word of caution is necessary: 1. The number of wanted vs unwanted consequences for each alternative is immaterial. The prime considera- tion is the importance of the consequences concerned and the effect they have on our goal. 2. Do not attempt to develop a numerical weighting system by which to evaluate the consequences. While this might be possible if each consequence could be isolated and separately considered, it must be remembered that these consequences exist in combinations with each other. A subjective evaluation of the total effects of all the consequences on an aiternative must be made by the decision-maker. This is a judgment on his part, and this intellectual judgment cannot be replaced by a mathematical model or a computer program. §£§p i9. Incision. The decision-maker selects the alternative he judges to have the best chance to success- fully meet the established goal. This need not necessarily be the alternative which appeared first in order on the list prepared during the previous step. Several of the alternatives may be capable of providing a satisfactory ( l } I 16 and acceptable solution; the decision-maker may then de- cide on the basis of which alternative he judges to have the greatest probability of successful implementation. A decision is a prelude to action; the decision—maker in his thinking cannot stOp at the point of selecting the best "decision", but must also consider the action which will follow it. Step i1. Implementation Instructions. Before action can follow a decision, the performers of the action must A be notified of the decision and supplied with instructions as to what is expected of them. This communication is essential and the decision—maker must insure that it is ) properly and promptly prepared and delivered into the hands ' of those who are required to act. \‘_. These instructions must be clear and precise, and (leave no doubt or possibility for misunderstanding on the 1 'part of the receiver. The communication system should provide for a request for clarification by any prOperly concerned person, who has received the instructions and doesn't understand them. (Step fig. Sgpervising Implementation. After the apprOpriate communications have been issued the decision- maker must supervise their implementation. This insures that the decision is acted upon and that it is done pro— perly. It also allows the decision-maker to discover any l7 confusion or misunderstanding surrounding the action re- quired by the decision; this will enable him to correct instructions promptly. Step i2. Adjusting EEE.LBCl§lQE° when the results of the decision become evident the decision-maker may realize that he made the wrong decision or that his de- cision must be modified to become effective. This being the case he should promptly re-evaluate the situation, taking this newly uncovered empirical information and re- entering the model at step #3. Upon arriving at the new or adjusted decision the necessary instructions should be issued and ample supervision provided. Be watchful, however, that before a change in a de- cision is made that it has been determined that it is actually necessary to achieve the goal. Minor changes which may improve the efficiency of the implementation might well be left undone if they would create other pro- blems, ie: new training requirements, lack of confidence by subordinates in the decision-maker, excessive adminis- trative burden, etc. To change or not to change is a judgment which must be made by the decision-maker. As a guideline,a change should not be made unless it offers a considerable ad- vantage. CHAPTER III REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE LTTERATU'“ This chapter will be divided into three sections. The first will review the literature in discussing such areas as, the role of the administrator and executive; the limita- tions on rationality in decision-making; economic man in relation to the administrative man; effects of automatic data processing on decision-making; and methods of im- proving decision—making ability. Section II will present an analysis of the decision-making models appearing in the literature. Thirdly, the proposed procedural model will be compared with the literature. I. GBNSRAL REVIBW Role 9: Administrative Theogy and the Administrator. Throughout history men have employed elaborate rituals for making up their minds. They have poured libations and sacrificed oxen in hopes of persuading a capricious and possibly hostile Nature to reward their decisions. They have consulted sibyls and watched the flight of birds to discover what the future holds in store. They have put their faith in proverbs and rules of thumb devised to take some of the guesswork out of living. They have sought divine guidance, as did George Romney, former president 19 of American Motors, when he fasted and meditated before de- ciding to seek the Republican nomination for Governor of Michigan.1 Executives are remarkably candid about their own ability to analyze the act of decision--usually they admit that they just don't know how they do it.2 A general theory of administration must include princi- ples of organization that will insure correct decision- making, just as it must include principles that will insure effective action.3 )Care must be exercised when attempting to establish organizational procedures for operation., Official rules must be general enough to have sufficient scope to cover the multitude of situations that may arise. ,But the app- lication of these general rules to particular cases often poses problems of judgment, and informal practices tend to emerge that provide solutions for these problems. De- cisions not anticipated by official regulations must fre- quently be made, particularly in times of change, and here again_unofficial practices are likely to furnish guides 1George A. Boehm, "Helping the Executive to Make Up His Mind," Eggtggg, 65 (April, 1962), p. 128. 2Robert W. Morell. Managerial Incision-Makin (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, I966), p. 2. 5Herbert A. Simon. Administrative Behavior (New York: Macmillan, 1957), p. l. 20 for decisions long before the formal rules have been adapted to the changing circumstances.4 The organizational policy must take both the formal and informal influences and communications into consideration. The reaching of a decision is the core of administra- tion, all the other attributes of the administrative pro- cess being dependent on, interwoven with, and existent for the making of decisions.5 A characteristic of the services of executives is that they represent a Specialization of the process of making organization decisions, and this is the essence of their functions.6 Executive work is not that of the organization, but the Specialized work of maintaining the organization in operation. This requires several essential executive functions: (1) the providing of a system of communication; (2) promoting the securing of essential efforts; and (5) the formulation and defining of organizational purpose.7 Business executives, along with politicians and military 4Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott. Formal Organization: 5 Comparative Approach (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1962), p. 6. 5J.I.. McCamy, "Analysis of the Process of IBcisicn- Making," Public Administration Bgview, 7 (1947), p. 41. 6 Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the ggecutive (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938), p. 189. 71bid., pp. 215-217 21 officers, are the principal professional decision-makers of the world. Of the three groups, only the military have a formal doctrine of decision. Traditional United States military doctrine is known as "the estimate of the situation."8 Rationality ;g_recision-Making. Administrative theory is peculiarly the theory of intended and bounded rationality-- of the behavior of human beings who satisfice because they don't have the wits to maximize.9 The need for an adminis- trative theory resides in the fact that there are practical limits to human rationality, and that these limits are not static, but depend upon the organizational environment in which the individual decision takes p1ace.10 Consider the individual as a decision-maker. Be is not an "economic man". This is not so much because he has feelings, needs social support, and so on, as the Human Relations school suggested, but because there are cognitive limits on his rationality, because he cannot know enough. TEconOm 9 Man", in some models at least, is assumed to be in a clearly defined environment, to know all the possible alternatives open to him and their likely con- John Mchnald, "How Businessmen Make IBcisions," Fortung, 52 (August, 1955), p. 86. 9simon (1957), 92. cit., p. ixiv. 10Ibid., p. 240. 22 sequences, and to have a clear way of ranking his prefer- ences for them. However, in practical decision~making, human beings have to act in relation to very much more limited and simplified models, which may be readily avail- able as routines or may be the result of prolonged search. The executive's knowledge of the factors that may influence the outcome of a decision is always limited. A major difficulty is that decision-making is concerned with future behavior which cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty.12 Actual behavior falls short, in at least three ways, of objective rationality: l. Rationality requires a complete knowledge and anticipation of the consequences that will follow on each choice. In fact, knowledge of consequences is always fragmentary. 2. Since these consequences lie in the future, imagination must supply the lack of experienced feeling in attaching value to them. But values can be only im- perfectly anticipated. 3. Rationality requires a choice among all possible llR. N. Spann, "The Study of Organization," Public Agministration, 40 (1962), p. 592. 12’Henry H. Albers. Organized Executive Action (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961), p. 2GB. alternative behaviors. In actual behavior, only a very few of all these possible alternatives ever come to mind.16 _March and Simon's theory of rational choice incorporates two fundamental characteristics: (1) choice is always exer- cised with respect to a limited, approximate, simplified _"model"of the real situation. This model is the chooser's "definition of the situation;" and (2) the elements of the definition of the situation are not "given"--that is,..w§__d9~ not take these as data of ourtheory-f-butarethemselves~ -w -_ -. ..,.. __ ~~ - ~--~au.—.~Ju ‘ _the outcome of psychological and sociological processes, including the chooser's own activities and the activities of others in his environment.14 According to Simonls, it is impossible for the be- havior of a single, isolated individual to reach any high degree of rationality. The number of alternatives he must explore is so great, the information he would need to evaluate them so vast that even an approximation to ob- jectiverationality is hard to conceive. The organizational and social environment in which the decision-maker finds himself determines what consequences 4 l J. G. March and H. A. Simon. Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961), p. 159. imon (1957), 92. cit., p. 81. 15“, , Simon (1957), 93. Cit.) p. 79. he will anticipate, what ones he will ignore.16 The ad- ministrator through education, training, and experience has built a personal framework over a period of years within which he considers his decision. Within this framework he has Specific and general knowledge, skills, and motiva- tions, including a set of values of what is worthwhile for 17 him and for the organization. Although facts are universal,/ it should be noted that interpretations of facts arepersonaII: The decision-maker should be aware that his analysis of facts ' sis dominated to a great extent by his conceptual framework.18 A cardinal sin in decision-making is the manufactur— ing of facts. This takes place when the decision-maker has already prejudged a situation and wishes to build a case for his "decision of desire" by providing an illusory factual base.19 The executive is also interested in the value or worth an?§§.§Y¢nt3 he observes or participates in. His values are continuously a factor in the decisions he makes and the 16March, 92. cit., p. 159. VCarroll Shartle. Executive Performancg and leadership (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-HaII, l956)p.286. 18 , Morell, 9p. Cit., p. 20. lgIbid. 25 Qiifighigh.he_pursues,fio Simon sees three categories of limitations to an indivi- dual's rationality: (1) unconscious skills, habits, and re- flexes; (2) values and conceptions of purpose; and (5) knowledge and information.21 Economic Man 13 Administrative Man. While economic man maximizes--selects the best alternative from among all those available to him; administrative man, satisfices--looks for a course of action that is satisfactory or "good enough."22 What is the economic man like? According to Edwards, he is completely informed; infinitely sensitive; and rational.25 The rational man of economics and statistical decision theory makes "optimal" choices in a highly Specified and clearly defined environment. These models make three basic assumptions: (1) that all the alternatives of choice are "given"; (2) that all the consequences attached to each alternative are known; and (5) that the rational man has a complete utility-ordering for all possible sets of con- sequences.24 The models of economic man and his mathematical 2OShartie, pp. cit., p. 152. ZlSimon (1957), 92. cit., p. 241. 2 21bid., p. xxv. F2 Bu‘vvard Edwards, "The Theory of Decision-Making," Psychological Bulletin, 51 (1954), p. 581. 24 MarCh, 220 Cit. , pp. 157-1380 26 / relations are for the most part inadequate fer the construc- . .flvv—p.‘~ (tion of verifiable theories of behavior of individuals with- \in the organizationf5 Cyert describes the fallacy of economic and statistical models by showing that they usually set up a situation where: (l) the decision—maker is confronted with a number of dif- ferent, specified alternative courses of action, (2) each alternative has a set of consequences attached to it, and (5) the decision-maker has a system of ranking preferences among the consequences; whereas, in the real world: {/1.\Alternatives are not given, they must be search- / M‘— ed for. 2. Consequences are not known, they must also be sought out. 5. Comparisons are not usually based on a single criterion. In place of a search for the "best" alternative the decision-maker usually Seeks a "satisfactory" alternative.26 Automatic Data Processing and Decisioon3533g. However significant the techniques for programmed decision-making that have emerged over the last decade, and however great 25Martinshubik, "Studies anthheori s owaecision- Making", Administrative Sciencg Quarterly, 5 (1958), p. 298.” askichard M. Overt, H.A. Simgn and renald B. Trow, "Observation of a Business Incision," Journal 93 Bgsinegg 29 (1956), p. 257. 27 the progress in reducing to sophisticated programs some areas that have previously been unprogrammed, these developments still leave untouched a major part of managerial decision- making activity. Many, perhaps most, of the problems that have to be handled at middle and high levels in management have not been made amenable to mathematical treatment, and probably never will. )éPresent indications are that operations research will live up to its expectations of helping executives to make 7Adecisions more intelligently, but the decisions will always remain to be made. The possibility of removing all sub— jective and qualitative factors must be deemed at the pre- sent time to be more a hOpe than a real possibility, and the construction of completely consistent and logical goals, ‘while a reasonable objective in decision- making is probably nattainflablefig8 J Executives have no reason to fear that they will be replaced by machines producing decisions "untouched by human brains." Hunch and intuition are still invaluable. "' fw-~.',4 Indeed, most decision theorists today are looking for ways 27Herbert A. Simon. The New Science 9:.Maqagggent Incision (New York: Harper, 1966), p. 21. _ 28Edward C. Bursk. New Decision-Making Tools For Mgnagers (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Universfty Press, I965) p. 29. to incorporate expert judgment with their mathematics. They want to take full advantage of the comprehensiveness of the human mind to augment the precision of COnputers. This inclusion of judgment is making decision theory more realistic, but at the same time it may cost the theory some of its mathematical incisiveness.29 The "machine" model of human behavior also tends to ignore the wide range of roles which the participant simultaneously performs and does not effectively treat problems associated with the coordination of the roles. In particular, it should be obvious that supervisory actions based on the naive "machine" model will result in behavior that the organization wishes to avoid.50 K1533ject Rand" was established by the Rand corporation, which is an independent, non-profit organization whose principal business is long-range, scientific, military re- Seapch_dd$isned to aid Air Force decisions. Rand scientists have concluded that no decision mechanism can be devised that will completely escape the basic uncertainties and complexities that plague large problems of decision.31 ___A___ A“; 1‘ 29Boehm, gp. cit., p. 129. 50March, gp. cit., p. 81. 51 John McDonald, "The War of Wits," Egrpgng, 45 (March, 1951), p. 99. 29 In the new era of decisions, as in the past, the executive must find the problems and the alternatives. The combination of these creative acts, together with the act of judgment, still defines and probably always will "’0 define the prime function of the executive.°“ Improvement 9: gagisigg-Mgkigg ébility. The capacity of most men to make decisions is quite narrow, although it is a capacity that may be considerably deveIOped by training and especially by experience.53 By securing an under- standing of the decision-making process and by deliberately putting it to work for him an individual should be able to augment whatever ability he may already have in this area.54 Effective decision-making demands more than experienced- based judgment. In the final analysis, there is no sub- stitute for this judgment, but it should be disciplined by application within a systematic problem-solving approach.35 The secret of problem-solving is that there is no secret. It is accomplished through complex structures of familiar 4‘.— 4 52Mcrbnald (Aug., 1955), 2p. cit., p. 157. '5 Barnard (195B), 92. 323., p. 190. 54 Morell, gp. cit., p. 12. 5 Robert W. Carney, "Make Your Ibcisions Effective," Administrgtive_Management, 24 (Iboember, 1965), p. 55. 50 simple elementsf56 Can an executive develOp his abilities to make effective management decisions except throigh the process of making good ones and bad ones over a long period of time? Many managers are emphatic in saying that they doubt it. Short cuts and easy ways to executive excellence in decision- making have been notably unsuccessful. Experience still ppears to be the best teacher of this most basic manage- ment skill.37 Ibcision-making deals with problems and alternatives. Whether the decision-maker chooses one alternative or another depends very much upon his ability to reason validly.38 Far too many errors in solvi g problems and in making decisions are due to loose reasoning and to an ignorance of the mind. We must think logically before we can act logically}9 The major objectives of a decision-making training program should be to provide realistic situations in which the learner can increase his capacity as a business decision- maker through increasing his understanding of the decision 36Simon (1960), gp. cit., p. 27. 3VCharles H. Kepner and Benjamin B. Tregoe, ‘"Developing Decision Makers," Harvard Business Review, 58 (September, 1960), p. 115. F} ” Morell, 92. cit., p. 15. 6 9 Ibid. , p. vii. process and sharpening his analytical skill: data collection, evaluation and analysis, situaticnal diagnosis, solution alternative development.4O Barnard feels there are four things the executive must learn regarding decision-making: 1. Not to decide questions that are not now per- tinent. 2. Not to decide prematurely. 5. Not to make decisions that cannot be made effective. 41 4. Not making decisions that others should make. II. nNALYSIS ()F DECISION-MAKING MODEIIS In this section a number of the decision-making models encountered in the literature will be presented. Comments concerning each model will be offered by the author. Anderson42 offers his scientific method of reasoning, which includes five steps: 1. Stating the problem 2. Formulating an hypothesis 4 0American Management Association. To Mane e- ment Qgcision §imulation (New York: AMA, Inc., 57), p. 115. 41 Barnard (1938), pp. cit., p. 194. 42George Anderson. Egg :2 Make Corgegt Decisions (New York: MacFadden, 1964), p. 69. — 32 3. Observing and eXperimenting 4. Interpreting the data 5. Drawing conclusions The model appears to be too general to be of much value to the practical decision—maker. The establishment of goals, and the preparation for the implementation of the decision, which must be considered throughout the decision-making process, are absent in Anderson's model. There is no dis- agreement with what he says, just that he isn't specific enough, nor covers all the phases necessary for rational decision-making. Ball45 postulates four phases in his logical approach to problem-solving: l. Recognize, define, and list all available a1- ternatives. 2. Select a means of measuring each alternative in terms of desired results. 3. Forecast the results of each alternative in terms of the decision criterion. 4. Construct a "decision rule" by which the most attractive results can be identified and thus the most de- sirable alternative selected. 45Roger a. Ball and Allan A. Gilbert, "How to Quantify Decision-making," Bgsiness ggrizons, 1 (Winter, 1958), pp. 74-75. This model appears to be too over-simplified to be of much practical significance. No mention is made of problem identification, or goals; however, when Ball speaks of de- sired results in step #2, we can assume he means goals. Ball's concept of decision criterion (step #5) and decision rule (step $4) are not completely explained by him, which makes the use of his model awkward. There is no mention of follow-up action. Carneyzj‘4 proposes the following logical sequence for decision-making: 1. Finding and defining the problem 2. Analyzing the problem 5. DeveIOping feasible alternative solutions 4. Selecting the best alternatives 5. Making the final decision work There is no serious criticism of this model as the development of goals can be assumed to be within the analyzing of the problem. The selection of the 2333 alternative however, may often prove difficult to do. Drucker’s45 model is quite similar to the previous one: 44Robert W. Carney, "Make Your Ibcisions Effective," Administrative Manggement, 24 (December, 1965), p. 55. 45 . Peter F. Drucker. The Practice gf'Managgmegg (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954), pp7~555-565. C») .p. Defining the problem Analyzing the problem Developing alternate solutions Ibciding upon the best solution; criteria for selecting these solutions: 5. a. The risk involved b. Economy of effort 0. Timing d. Limitations of resources Converting the decision into effective action Drucker offers his criteria for selecting a 9333 solution, which gives his model a greater practical value than that of Carney's. Folsom process: 1. a problem 2. problem 5. (New York: 45 offers his seven stages of the decision-making Analyzing the situation to find out if there is Collecting facts Analyzing the factors of the problem Creating new ideas and new ways to tackle the Weighing alternative courses of action 46 . Marion B. Folsom. Executive Lacision_Maklpg McGraw-Hill Book Co., 962), p. 41 55 6. Deciding on a single definite course of action 7. Following up By assuming the inclusion of the formation of goals, and the development of alternatives, in his stages the technique appears very adequate. 47 Gore offers the following model: 1. Perception--of the need to establish policy 2. £gterpretatiog--consideration of alternative reactions, interpreted against what might be called the in- ternal objectives of the office 5. Struggle for Power--an effort to gain the support of power centers 4. Formalization--the formulation of the decision Gore's model is concerned more with the agency chief's actions and thinking, than those of his subordinate ad- ministrators who must perform the more detailed calculations. This model appears to have little value for the middle- management executive. Gray48 has a five phase procedure for problem-solving: 1. Qgggggp--a common concern for the problem 2. Consideration--how does the problem relate to -— ~— 47William J. Gore, "Administrative Decision-Making in Federal Field Offices," Public Administration Review, 16 (1956), pp. 284-291. ‘T '" 48Roger Gray, "Problem-Solving and Executiveship Can Improve Leadership," Adult Leadership, 12 (June,1965)p.44. 56 the organization and what are the possible solutions 5. Conviction-~is the prepcsed solution: a. adequate b. can it accomplish the job 0. acceptable 4. Commitment-oacceptance of responsibility to achieve the goal 5. Coqperatign--working together to accomplish the goal This model appears to be another over-simplification and would have to give much more specific information be- fore it would have any value for the practical decision- maker. Kingsbury49 offers his nine steps of creative problem- solving: 1. Observation--assembling and analyzing facts 2. Definition-~define the basic problem 5. Preparation-~gather other pertinent data 4. Analysis--of all relevant material 5. Ideation--piling up alternatives by way of ideas o. Incubation--letting up, to invite illumination 7. Synthesis--putting the pieces together 0 4“Warren T. Kingsbury, "A Case For Creative Pro- blem-Solving," Adult Leadership, 12 (Feb., 1964), p. 250. 37 8. Evaluation--judging the resultant ideas 9. Development--planning the implementation of those ideas This model seems useful although Kingsbury does not mention goals, nor does he provide for the supervision of the implementation. More information would be necessary before the incubation phase could be properly evaluated. His reference to judging is excellent, since judgment plays an important role in decision-making. Morell"O presents his four stages of decision-making: 1. Stage of uncertainty 2. Stage of analysis and definition 5. Proposal of alternatives 4. Stage of verification This again is a general vieWpoint of the decision- making process which provides few practical guidelines for the decision-maker. A group of executives developed the "seven steps of good decision-making" in a workshop sponsored by the New 51 York Adult Education Council. 1. Ibcide what the problem or opportunity is 50Morell, 9p. cit., p. 27. 1"Seven Steps of Good [Boision-Making," Manage- ment Review, 44 (1955), p. 619. 2. Evaluate the situation in terms of its scope, your individual reSponsibility, the other peOple involved, and the company policy 5. Analyze the situation in terms of available facts, information sources, precedent, your empirical knowledge, competitive factors, possible alternatives, and creativity 4. Consider the emotional climate and physical environment involved, the problems of status, skill, com- petency, coordination and communication 5. Decide carefully what ultimate purpose will be served by the decision 6. Do not fear reSponsibility for what you decide 7. Never default; make the decision This model is especially interesting to study since it was developed by a group of operating business executives. Although it ably covers the area, it still lacks the more specific guides which should prove helpful to the decision- maker. No mention is made of the preparation for the implementation of the decision, or of supervision after its implementation. Simonsz postulates three phases of decision-making: l. Intellegence--scanning the environment to see what matters require a decision 5"Simon (196C), 22. c t., p. 51. 2. Design--processes for developing and examining possible courses of action 5. Choice--processes for choosing among courses of action What Simon says is true, however, it is so general that it has little value to the practical decision-maker. It should be of interest however, to persons interested in the formulation of administrative theory or the develop- ment of decision-making procesS"s. It makes no mention of implementation plans, or supervision of the results. The following model of a "perfect rational decision" includes Simon's earlier stress on the fact-value distinc— tion and later concern with the process of choice. There are four steps involved, the first three concerned with the formulation of choices and the last representing the act . 55 of choOSlng. 1. The recollecting pf all primary values relevant 39 the situation. Some are obviously relevant and some obviously irrelevant, but some values do not indicate re- levance or irrelevance without the third step of reducing them to intelligible derivative values. 2. The collection gf all relevant facts. This 55 , V. Subramanlam, "Fact and Value in Incision Making," Public figministration Review, 25 (1965), pp. 256-257. 4O involves collecting the more certain facts as well as making factual judgments or probability evaluations of many others. 5. The logical combination of each relevant value with all its relevant facts. This must be carried on till an intelligible derivative value (and its means) can be isolated in each case. In this process primary values of doubtful relevance are weeded out or included as soon as each yields an intelligible derivative value of obvious relevance or irrelevance. 4. The comparison 9Q these relevant derivative zalugs 93 alternatives. The order of preference in some cases is established simply and immediately. But in many cases the process of derivation, as in step #5, has to be carried further into the future to get a further set of intelligible derivates called consequences. A diagram of the model which was offered by Subramaniam is shown in Figure 2. This model undertakes a theoretical evaluation of rational oecision-making, and offers little to the practical decision-maker who is confronted with empirical situations which he must solve. Its value in the realm of theory also is limited by the importance it places on the distinction between fact and value, and the require- ment that they always be identified. .ooeozwomqoo w eoaaoo on has onsusm on» on wcfipoaop .pcwpasmmu map .mpowm pcw>oaon mafia eoofipeoo ma .meos obwpsOfleofi map one“ nmmommowmp .msao> opfipo>finme pconndo w some "opoz osaob mpfipm>wan “on ma momma u N onwmo onamb o>fipm>finon 9 mpoom H‘l GEE H H mango osao> o>fipo>finom \q mpomh pao>oaom + .mcosam> mmoefifim poo>maom ozao> o>fipo>finon “on a“ momma u N onwao osam>9o>fipo>aan mpoom paw>oaom IT now u H 36.5 osaopao>fipw>finom mpomm pom>oaom + M1oeam> hnweflnm :OfimfiOnfl Houofipom poomnom m we moondeomqoo moocosvomaoo u a comma u e momma msHo> o>Hpo>fian osao> o>fipw>HHRH pumped on: A. 4. mo copmcwefiam mpomm pom>oaom mpomm pqo>oamm 11 [$114 1 I 1: +. 11 111 _+ s compo w momma w momma mdao> m>fipm>fian osao> o>fipm>finmu osaw> o>fipo>dnon “ma ca cam "on Ca gum "on ma cam now m momma new m woman one m momma osaw> o>fipo>ahon msam> o>fipm>finmn meaw> mpflpo>anmm "on ma momma u a compo “on a“ momma n a moose “on ma momma u n oumno mafimpao>fipmpfinoa ozao>4m>fipm>anmu odao> o>fipw>fiamu 9. mpowm pom>naom mpomm pao>maom mpowm pqm>maom +. +. + n mango osam> n mango o5am> n oewno osaw> o>wpn>finon ”on ma o>wpw>finmn “on a“ m>fipo>fiumm “on :a new one H ouono eqm can H momma com com a momma osam> o>fipm>fihon “on a“ momma a m meeam msaw> opflpw>finom a. mpomm ooo>mamm + DEM H H. ®OMHO onao> e>pr>fian a mpomm poo>oaom + xcmsao> mnwsfinm Howe: o go Sommea myopdm mesons eo pameoz one mm>HB There is a general agreement that the executive's ability to make decisions can be improved, although it is cautioned that the limitations on men's rationality must be taken into account. Analysis of the Eisld Data. There were as many different approaches to making a decision as there were administrators interviewed. The administrators diSplayed no formality in following a set procedure, yet several observations were made which could be considered common for the group: 1. The solution selected was'Telt" to be the right one, that is why it was picked. This "feeling" was dif- ficult for the decision-makers to explain. The ability to 1John McDonald, "How Businessmen Make Decisions," Fortgne, 52 (August, 1955), p. 137. 2 Robert W. Carney, "Make Your Ikcisions Effective," Administrative Mgpagement, 24 (Ibcember, 1965), p. 55. ficharles H. Kepner and Benjamin B. Tregoe, "IBveloping,IkcisionAMakers," Harvard Business Review, 38 (September, 1960), p. 115. 4Herbert A. Simon. Adminigtrative Behavior (New York: Macmillan, 1957), p. 81. ' explain the method used in evaluating alternatives was absent in almost every case. 2. Very seldom were all the forseeable alternatives develOped and considered. 3. Whenever the decision was concerned with an expenditure of funds a much greater effort was made to develop and evaluate as many alternative solutions as possible. 4. The Situation which the decision changed often existed for sometime; the act of decision being motivated by a blunder, criticism or outer-department influences. II. CONCLUSIONS Comparison of the Literaturg with the Mgdgl. While the literature ignored several aSpects of the decision-making process, which the model included, only Step i5, Evaluat- ing Alternatives was in conflict with some of the litera- ture. Muther5 and Bristow6 both emphasize the use of a numerical system for weighting alternatives. The evaluat- ing of alternatives by a non-numerical method was favored by the majority of writers in the field. The value of a 5 Richard Muther, "Techniques for Making Better Iboisions," Management Review, 45 (1956), pp. 821-822. 6Allen P. Bristow and 3.0. Gabard. Decision- Makin in Police Administration (Springfield, Illinois: Charles—C. Thomas,‘I§SIT7 p. V5. lOO numerical weighting system in an intellectual activity re- quiring Judgment is questionable. The establishment of a numerical rating system would allow the use of a concise, neat approach to decision-making, which might be possible if each alternative and consequence could be isolated and separately considered, unfortunately, this is not the case. These alternatives and consequences exist in combination with each other and present a complex situation rather than a simple one. The evaluator who makes a subjective Judgment to assign numerical values and then attempts to compute these values with arithmetical exactness violates a principle of the scientific method. It can be stated that the available literature supports the model which was proposed by this thesis. Comparison 23 the Eield gate with the Model. The pro- cedures followed by police decision-makers were not as complex as those proposed by the model. The field data indicates that excellent results can be and are attained by much simpler methods of decision-making than these pro- posed in this study. While the empirical data does not support the necessity for using the model it by no means rejects it. Many of the decisions made would have benefit- ed by a systematic approach such as the model offers. The use of the model in all the situations encountered would not have hindered the decision-maker, although in several 101 cases it would have taken him longer to arrive at a de- cision. It should be noted that time was not a factor in any of these decisions. The use of the model would de- finitely have resulted in the development of more alter- natives, which would have enabled avoidance of several of the pitfalls which the administrators encountered. It was mentioned in the Introduction that the com- parison of actual practices with the model would not per- mit acceptance or rejection of the model. An analysis of the data indicates that the use of the model would not have reduced the effectiveness of any of the decisions made, and would probably have increased the quality of some of them. Eigg; Conclusions. The research findings support the following statements: I. The hypothesis was supported. The prOposed model allows an adequate approach to the decision-making process. 2. Specifically regarding the three Key questions which were asked: a. Is the prOposed model a valid procedure to accomplish rational decision-making? The findings in- dicate that the answer is yes, although it must be remem- bered that man's rationality is limited. b. Did the police administrators, whose cases 102 were analyzed, follow a rational procedure to arrive at their decisions? Yes, they did follow a rational proce- dure, however, their rationality was limited more than was necessary, by their failure to approach each situation systematically. 0. Would adherence to the model have increas- ed or decreased the factors considered in arriving at a decision by the police administrators? The factors which were considered would have been increased in almost every case. 3. The use of the model in the field might have increased the quality of the police administrator's de- cision; at the very least, it would have allowed him to avoid certain pitfalls. Recommendatiqgs. 1. It is recommended that further research con- cerning the use of this model be conducted. This research could take several directions, ie: the comparison of the model with the executive practices in large city police departments; the trial use of the model in a labortory situation, where a control group is used; or an effort to refute the model by finding or develOping situations in which it would not work adequately. 2. An interesting area for study might be to un- cover the motivation for action on decision-making 105 situations which existed for some time before they were acted upon. 3. It is further suggested that police administra- tors taKe a greater interest in decision-making processes, both in their daily operations and in their training pro- grams. BIBLIOGRAPHY 105 BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS //Albers, Henry H. Organized Executive Action. New York: John Wiley and Sons, I961. ,American Management Association, Elizabeth Marting, editor. To Management Decision Simulation. New York: AMA, Inc., I957 Anderson, George. How To Make Correct Iboisions. New York: MacFadden, 1964. Argyris, Chris. executive Leadership. New York: Harper, 1953. Barish, Norman N Economic Anal ysis For Engineering and Managerial Ibeision-Makfi . New York: McCraw-Hill BookCo., 1962. (Barnard, Chester I. Organization and Management. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948. . The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press, “1938. Blau, Peter M. The namics of Bureaucr racy. Chicago: '/ University of Chicago Press, I955: , and W. Richard Scott. Formal Organization: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler Publish- ing 00., I962. hBristow, Allen P. and 3.0. Babard. IBcision-Makigg in Police Administration. Springri‘IE, Illinois. Charles C. Thomas, 1961. \Bross, Irwin D.F. Reign for Decision. New York: Mac- Millan Company, . Burnham, James. The Managerial Revolution. New York: John Day, 1941. ,fi/Bursk, Edward C. New Decision-Makigg Eggls EgngQQQgggs. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963. 106 /Cooper, Joseph D. 'The Art 9__£ecision-iaking. New York: Doubleday and Co., 1961. Davidson, Donald and Patrick Suppes. Decisigp¢Making. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1957. Dimock, Marshall E. Administrative Vitality. New York: Harper, 1959. Drucker, Peter F. The Practice gpranagement. New York: Harper and BrotEErs, 1954. Dunlap, J. W. Mathematical Models gnguman Behavior. Stamford, Conn.: Dunlap and Associates, Inc., 1955. /Folsom, Marion 8. Executive Decision-Making. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962. /Jones, Manley Howe. Executive [Boisioanaking. Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, 1957. Lays, wayne A. R. Ethics for Policy Incisions. New York: Prentice-Hall, IdSET‘ “"‘ Manne, Alan S. Economics Analysis For Business Incision. New York: MoGraw-HiII Book Co.,-196I. l/March, J. G. and H. A. Simon.‘ Organizations. New York: John Niley and Sons, 1958. Melman Seymour. Incision Making and Productivity. New York: Wiley, 1958. Morel], R. W. Managerial Decision-Making. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1965. ,Niles, Mary C. The Essence 2; Management. New York: Harper / and Brothers, I958. Schlaifer, Robert. Statistics for Business Escisicns. New York: McGraw—Hili—Book Co., 1961. //Shartle, Carroll. Executive Performance and Leadership. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1956. I,Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. New York: __. The New Science 93 Management Iboision. New ' York: Harper, 1960. 107 /Tead, Crdway. The Art of Administration. New York: McCraw-Hill, I951.’ Thrall, R. M., C. H. Coombs, and R. L. Davis. gecigion Processes. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1954. B. DISSERTATIONS Nicolaidis, Nicholas G. Polio -Ibcision and Organization Theor . Los Angeles: To HEW Imnner Fund Publication No. , University of Southern California, 1960. C. PERIODICALS Anderson, Theodore R., and Seymour Warkov. "Organization Size and Functional Complexity: A Study of Administra- tion in Hospitals, " American Sociological Review, 26 (1961), pp. 25- 28. Anshen, Melvin. "The Manager and the Black Box, " HarVerd Business Review, 58 (Nov., 1960), pp. 85- 92. [Ball, Roger E. and Allan A. Gilbert. "How to Quantify Decision—making, " Business Horizons, 1 (Winter, 1958), pp. 75- 79. Bates, James. "A.Model for the Science of Decision," Philosophx 9: Science, 21 (1954), pp. 526-559. Bendix, Reinhard. "Bureaucracy and the Problem of Power," Public Administration Review, 7 (1947), pp. 495-507. Bennett, Edith B. "Discussion., Incision, Commitment and Consensus in 'Group Dicision, '” Human Relations, 8 (1955), pp. 251-275. Black, D. "On the Rationale of Group Incision-Making," lgurnal 9: Political §£2£2EX: 56 (1948), pp. 25-54. 4,Boehm, George A. "Helping the Executive to Make Up His ' Mind," fortune, 65 (April, 1962), p. 128. /Carney, Robert W. ”Make Your IBcisions Effective," Adminis- trative Management, 24 (Ibc., 1965), pp. 55-56. 108 Cartwright, D., and L. Festinger. "A Quantitative Theory of Decision," Psychological Review, 50 (1945), pp. 595- 621. Cohen, M. B. and R. A. Cohen. "Personality as a Factor in Administrative Ibeisions," Psychiatry, 14 (1951), pp. 47-530 Coser, Rose Laub. "Authority and Incision-Making in a Hospital," American Sociological Review, 25 (1958), Pp. 56-630 ,~Cyert, Richard M., Herbert A. Simon, and Donald B. Trow. "Observation of a Business Ikcision," Journal 2; Business, 29 (1956), pp. 257-248. , W. R. Dill, and F. G. March. "The Role of Ex- pectations in Business Decision Making," Administrative Science Quarterly, 5 (1958), pp. 289-506. Dale, Ernest. "New Perspectives in Managerial [Boision- Making," Journal 2: Business, 26 (1955), pp. 1-8. than, Burton V. "Application of Operations Research to Managerial.Incision-Making," Administrative Science Quarterly, 5 (1958), pp. 412-428. Diesing, Paul. "Noneconomic Ibcision-Making," Ethics, 66 (1955), pp. 18-350 Dorsey, John T., Jr. "A Communication Model for Administra- tion," Administrative Science Quarterly, 2(1957), pp. 507-524. Dubin, Robert. "Incision-Making by Management in Industrial Relations," American Journal g£_Sgpiologz, 54 (1949), pp. 292-297. I Durisch, L. L., and R. E. Iowry. "The Scope and Content of Administrative IEcision--the TVA Illustration," Public Administration Review, 15 (1955), pp. 219-226. .Edwards, Ward. "The Theory of Incision-Making," Psycho- “ logical Bulletin, 51 (1954), pp. 580-417. Gaumnitz, R. K. and O. H. Brownlee. "Mathematics for IBcision Makers," Harvard Business Review, 54 (May, 1956), pp. 48-560 109 A Georgopoulous, Basil 3., and Arnold S. Tannenbaum. "A Study of Organizational Effectiveness," American Sociological Review, 22 (1957), pp. 554- . Gordon, Paul J. "Heuristic Problem Solving," Business Horizons, 5 (Spring, 1962), pp. 45-55. Gore, William J. "Administrative Incision-Making in Federal Field Offices," Public Administration Review, 16 (1956), pp. 281-291. . "Developments in Public Administration," Public Administration Review, 22 (Sept., 1962), pp. 16I-172. Gray, Roger. "Problem-Solving and Executiveship Can Im- prove leadership," Adult Leadership, 12 (June, 1965), pp. 42-45. v Harris, William J. "Ibcision," Military Review, 56 (1956), pp 0 33-42 0 Hunt, L. 1. "Decisions and Their Significance," Occupa- tional Psychology, 16 (1942), pp. 154-142. Hurni, Melvin L. "IBcision Making in the Age of Automation," Harvard Business Review, 55 (1955), pp. 49-58. Katona, George. "Psychological Analysis of Business IB- cisions and Expectations," American Economic Review, 56 (March, 1946), pp. 45-62. , and James N. Morgan. "The Quantitative Study of Factors Determining Business Iboisions," Quarterly Journal 93 Economics, 66 (1952), pp. 67-907 ,/Kepner, Charles H. and Benjamin B. Tregoe. "Ibveloping Ibcision-Makers," Harvard Business Review, 58 (Sept., 1960), pp. 115-124. Kingsbury, Warren T. "A Case For Creative Problem-Solving," Adult Leadership, 12 (Feb., 1964), pp. 250-255. learned, Edmund P., Arch R. Dooley and Robert L. Katz. "Personal Values and Business [Boisions," Harvard Business Review, 57 (March, 1959), pp. 111-125. lefton, Mark, Simon Dinitz, and Benjamin Pasamanick. "Ibcision-Making in a Mental Hospital: Real, Perceived, and Ideal," American Sociological Review, 24 (1959), pp. 822-829 0 110 Levy, Charles S. "IBcisions! Iboisionsz," Adult Leader- ship, 11 (May, 1962), pp. 10-26. . "Iboision-Making and Self- Letermination, " Adult LEa dership, 12 (Sept., 1965), pp. 68-90. Lindblom, Charles E. "The Science of 'Muddling Through,'" Public Administration Review, 19 (1959), pp. 79-88. Long, Norton E. "Public Policy and Administration: The Goals of Rationality and ReSponsibility," Public Administration Review, 14 (1954), pp. 22-5 Martin, Norman H. "Differential.lboisions in the Manage- ment of an Industrial Plant, " Journal of Business, 29 (1956), pp. 249- 260. McCamy, J. L. "Analysis of the Process of [Boision-Making," Publig_Administration Review, 7 (1947), pp. 41-48. ”McDonald, John. "The War of Wits," Fortune, 45 (Mar., 1951), p. 99. . "How Businessmen Make Iboisions," Fortune, 52 I (11.1%., 1955), pp. 84-870 Miller, Paul A. "The Process of Incision-Making Within the Context of Community Organization, " Rural Sociology, 17 (1952), pp. 155-161. Morgenstern, Oskar. "The Game Theory in U.S. Strategy," Fortune, 60 (Sept., 1959), p. 126. Muther, Richard. "Techniques for Making Better Ikeisions," Management Review, 45 (1956), pp. 821-822. Norris, Thomas L. "Decision-Making Activity Sequences in a Hacienda Community," Human Organization, 12 (1955), pl 0 26-300 Ostrom, Vincent. "Tools for Lecision-Making in Resource Planning," Public Administration Review, 19 (1959), pp. 114-121. Patton, Arch. "'what is an Executive Worth," Harva r d Blsiness Review, 59 (March, 1961) pp. 65-75. “. “u“ 111 Pfiffner, John M. "Policy Ieadership--For Nhat?", Publig ndministrnnion Review, 19 (1959), pp. 121-124. Robinson, James A. "Incision Making in the House Rules Committee," Administrative Science Quarterly, 5 (1958), pp. 75-86. Schmidt, Warren H. and Robert Tannenbaum. "Management of Differences," Harvard Business Review, 58 (Nov., 1960), pp. 107-1150 Schromp John E. "Military Problem Solving " Military Revien, 55 (1956), pp. 28-57. ' "Seven Steps of Good Incision-Making," Mgnngemenn 333233, 44 (1955), p. 619. Shaw, Marjorie E. "A Comparison of Individuals and Small Groups in the Rational Solution of Complex Problems," American lgurnal 9; Psychology, 44 (1952), pp. 491-504. Shaw, Marvin E., Gerard H. Rothschild, and John F. Strick- land. "Decision Processes in Communication Nets," Journal 9; épnormal and Social Psycnglggy 54 (1957) pp. 325-3300 ’ ’ Shubik, Martin. "Games, Decisions and Industrial Organiza- tion," Managemenn Science, 6 (1960), pp. 455-474. . "Studies and Theories of Decision Making," Administrative Science Quarterly, 5 (1958), pp. 289-506. , Simon, Herbert A. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," Duartgnly Journal of Economics, 69 (Feb., 1955), pp. gg’IlBo ‘. "A Comment on 'The Science of Public Administra- tion,'" Public Administratign Revien, 7 (Summer, 1947), pp. 200-253. . "Incision-Making and Administrative Organization," Public Administratign Review, 4 (Winter, 1944), pp. 16-360 . "Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environ- ment," Paychological ReviewJ 65 (March, 1956), pp. 129- 158. Smiddy, Harold F. "Managerial.Incision-Making," Advanced Mnnagemenn, 24 (1958), pp. 5-15. Snyder, Richard and Glenn D. Paige. "The United States Incision to Resist Agree sion in Korea: The Applica- tion of an Analytical Scheme," Administrative Science Quarterly, 5 (1958), pp. 541-578—* Spann, R. N. "The Study of Organizations," Public Adminis- tration, 40 (1962), pp. 587- 405. Stene, Edwin 0. "An Approach to a Science of Administra- tion," American Enlinicnl Science Rgview, 54 (1940), pp. 1124‘I15:0 Stryker, Perrin. "How an Executive Makes Up His Mind," Fortune, 61 (April, 1960), p. 151. . "The Executive Nho Nas 'Always Fair,'" Fortune, “"5§‘(Feb., 1959), p. 124. . "The Rarest Man in Business," Fortung, 59 (May, 1959), p. 119. Subramaniam, V. "Fact and Value in Decision-Making," Public Agninistration Review, 25 (1965), pp. 252-257. Taylor, Donald N., and Olga w. McNemar. "Problem Solving and Thinking," Annual Review 9: Psychology, 6 (1955), Taylor, Paul S. "The Relation of Research to Legislative and Administrative Ibcisions, " Journal of Social Issues, 5 (1947), pp. 49- 56. Ziller, Robert C. "Four Techniques of Group Decision Making under Uncertainty," Journal of Appligd Psycholggy, 41 (1957), pp. 584-588. APPEN DIX 114 APPEN DIX A INTERVIEW GUIDE 1. Narrative Summary (obtained thru non-leading questions) A. B. C. D. E. Recognition of problem Actions Incision Actions Results (if known) 2. Questions concerning the IVM‘S approach to the situation A. l19° Problem (1) How did you hear of the situation and what did you do? (2) Did you determine what the real problem was? How? What was it? 99.21% (1) What did you do after you knew what the problem was? (2) Did you establish any goals? How? What were they? Envelopment 9; Alternatives (1) What did you do after your goals were established? (2) Did you determine what alternatives were available to you? How? What were they? 115 D. Analysig p: Alternativgg (1) What did you do after you knew what the alternatives were? (2) Did you determine what would and/or should happen if they were adOpted? How? What were the results? E. Evaluating Alternanives (1) What did you do after you had judged what the consequences of the alternatives would be? (2) Did you evaluate each alternative in any way? How? What were the results? F. Decis inn (1) What did you do next? (2) Did you select one of the alternatives available to you? On what basis? What was your decision? Why that one? G. Implementing Instructions (1) What was done after the decision was made? (2) Who was required to act on the decision? How were they notified? Were the instruct- ions understood (at that time)? How do you know? H. Supervising Implementation (1) What was done after the instructions were issued? 116 (2) Who supervised the action? How (frequency, etc.) What were the results of the supervision? I. Adjusting the Decision (1) Did that complete the requirements of the situation? ) Did the supervision reveal any short- {‘3 ( comings in the decision? What were they? What was done? How? Results? 5. General Questions A. Was there any serious deficiency in the D/M process used? B. Were any apparent alternatives neglected? C. Were any apparent sources of information ignored? D. Did the D/M use any guidelines for arriving at his decision? . Was there effective coordination of information [1.] both before and after the decision? ,. . 0" 5 . r. \. ' l' ‘. ., . ‘A ' ;~, ' e. , e.»- , - ’4 V I. A \I 5"?“ ' 'J.‘ I . ‘ . C ,0 U 4 I . .- .3.» ICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES 31293104014950