conclusions from a study of decision making peer soelberg
TRANSCRIPT
Re s ear ch Pr ogram on t he Management
CONCLUS IONS FROM A STUD" OF DEC IS ION MAKING
Pe er Soe lbe rg
1 73 66
S loan S choo l o f Managemen t
Ma s sa chus e t t s Ins t i tut e o f Te chno logy
The r e sear ch under l ying th i s paper wa s s uppor t e d in par t s b y fund s from the
Ford Founda t ion , t he Na tiona l Aeronaut i c s and Spac e Admin i stra t ion , and t he
S l oan Schoo l of Management . The paper shou ld not be r eproduc ed in who l e or
in par t w i t hou t the author ' s permi s s ion .
CONCLUS IONS FROM A STUDY OF DEC IS ION MAKING
For the pa s t two and a ha l f year s the aut hor ha s p l odde d and wade d
through the fo l lowing pha s e s o f a s t udy o f human d e c i s i on behavior
Pha s e I :
Repea t ed t e -examina t i on o f t he var i ed and wid e ly d i sper s ed l i t er a tur e
o f conc ep t s , propo s i t i on s , f ind ing s , and mode l s o f d e c i s i on and prob l em so lving
b ehavi or , for th e purpo s e and wi t h h igh hop e s o f f ind ing a t l e a st one hypothe
s i s about human cho i ce b ehavior tha t wou ld b e
i , r ea sonab ly centra l to a genera l i z ed the ory o f such b ehavior ,
ii , a pr ior i non- tr ivia l , or a t l e a s t somewha t surpr i s i ng i f t rue , and t ha t
i i i . cou l d b e made su f f i c ient l y Opera t iona l t o b e emp ir i ca l ly r e j e c tab l e
g iven the pre s ent ly , or even conc e ivab l y , ava i lab l e me thod s o f
ob serva t ion and exper imen ta t ion .
A four t h cons tra in t , name l y tha t the co s t o f our hypo the s i s-t e s t ing
re s ear ch e f for t was t o b e kep t wi t h in the me an s o f t he exper imen t er t he
la t t er budge t ed t o one man-year ' s wor th o f work never ne ede d t o b e con su l
t ed , a s no wor thy cand ida t e for a Cr i t i ca l Hypo the s i s wa s found tha t survived
app l i ca t i on o f the f ir s t thre e cons tra int s , even a f t er r epea t ed and c er t a in l y
de t ermine d a t tacks on t he wr i t ing s o f o ther s in th i s f i e l d .
Pha s e II : Abou t a year ' s wor t h o f non- pr e s tru c t ured exp lora t ion of , l i t era l l y
a lmo s t per sona l submer s ion in , a se t o f h igh l y de ta i l e d pro to co l ob serva t ions
of a samp l e o f ' r ea l wor ld d e c i s i on maker s ' cho ic e b ehavior s . The exp lora
tory s ub j e c t s wer e s e l e c t ed qu i t e exp l i c i t l y on ba s i s o f t he fo l lowing
cr i t er ia tha t the y wer e
i . ra ther We l l e duca t ed , even s choo l ed in modern de c i s ion theory ;
i i . h igh ly invo lved in the ir de c i s ion - to -be -made p er sona l l y , i . e .
t ha t the la t t er was bo th an exp l i c i t as we l l a s very impor tan t
cho ic e for t hem to make "r igh t " ;
i i i . ra ther unfami l iar wi th the par t i cu lar t yp e o f de c i s i on cont ext
fac ing them hav ing fa c ed few i f any such s imi lar cho i ce s b e for e , and
no t expe c t ing to do s o aga in in the imme d ia t e l y for s e eab l e fu ture ;
iv . i n a lmo s t comp l e t e contro l o f the cho i c e thems e lve s , per sona l l y
e s sent ia l l y to ens ure t ha t a s few a s po s s ib le , e Xp e r ime nta l ly unoh
s erved int erper sona l , int er - group , or or gan i za t i on in f l uenc e s brough t
themse lve s to b ear on the fo ca l per son making t he d e c i s ion ;
v . e a s i ly (and inexpens ive ly ) a c c e s s ib l e for r ep ea t ed and h igh l y
de ta i l e d prob ing ob s erva t ions o f the ir d e c i s i on-making thought
pro c e s s e s over the per iod s o f t he ir cho i ce s , wh i ch wou l d in turn
mo s t de s irab l y
VI . o c cupy s evera l months ' t ime and de l ib era t ions , in order to mini
mi ze t he ob s erver mea surement e f fe c t s , a s we l l a s enab l e a r ea so nab l e
numbe r, 1 ike four or mor e,de ta i1 e d verba l pro to co l ob serva t ions to
be made o f ea ch man ' s cho ic e pro c e s s over h i s more a c t ive de c i s ion
mak ing per iod .
M . I . T . S loan S choo l o f Managemen t Ma s t er ' s and Do c tor ' s de gre e gradua t e
s t udent s , in the pro c e s s \o f s e l e c t ing the ir organ i za t i on to par t i c ipa t e in
a f t er gradua t ion , se emed to f i t t h i s b i l l a s per fe c t ly a s any r ea l wor ld
de c i s ion -maker (Dm ) r ead i ly ava i lab l e in rea sonab l e number s cou ld b e expe c t e d
t o . As a gr oup th e y a l s o pr e sen t ed the add it i ona l advan tage o f be ing s ta t ioned
in one c entra l l o ca t ion and r eady for in s tant s tudy . Fur thermor e , wha t ever
hypo the s e s wou ld come ou t o f our intitia l ob s erva t ions cou ld e a s i ly b e pu t
to a r ea sonab l y fa ir f ir s t t e s t w i th s uc c e ed ing year s ' popu la t ions o f pr e sum
ab ly “s im i lar gradua t e s t uden t s .
Phas e III : The aut hor ' s induc t i on o f pa t t ern s to h i s h igh l y impre s s ioni s t i c
hunche s abo ut t he na tur e o f the t ho ugh t pro c e s se s t ha t ”mus t have ” ge nera t ed th e s e
Dms ' r e por te d and ob s erved cho i c e b ehav ior s , eventua l ly r e su l t ing in t he
forma l i za t ion o f h i s idea s into an exp l i c i t l y s t a t ed , ge ne ra l izab l e , d e c i
s ion pro ce s s mod e l her e - a f t er r e ferr ed to a s GDP - I .
Pha s e IV : Much mor e forma l i zed and sy s t ema t i c co d ing o f the who l e ma s s o f h igh l y de
tail e d intErvflwJ pro toco l ob s erva t ion s , in a c cordanc e wi th t he concep t s and
ca t egor i e s o f the author ' s exp l i c i t l y s ta t e d de c i s ion pro c e s s mode l inc lu
d ing herewi th th e quan t i f i ca t ion and coun t ing o f Opera t iona l l y de f ined event s
t ha t e i t her s uppor t ed or wen t aga ins t the ke y opera t iona l hypo the s e s o f t he
mod e l .
Phase V : Re -examina t ion of the mode l and der iva t ion from i t a se t o f ke y
h ypo the s e s wh i ch , i f th e mode l wa s t o b e wor th anyt h ing , shou ld now b e born
ou t in ob s erva t i on s o f the cho ic e b ehav ior o f any new se t o f s imi lar Dms .
"S imi lar i ty " wa s de f ined ra ther cons erva t ive l y a s sugge s t e d above : The
fo l lowing year ' s gradua t ing c la s s from the M . I . T . S loan S choo l o f Mana gemen t
wa s tapped to be our f ir s t pr ed i c t ion popu la t i on .
Pha s e VI ; De s ign and admini s tra t ion o f a very narrow l y de f ine d l ong i t ud ina l
s t udy , emp loy ing for i t s mea sure s a s e t o f p in-po int que s t ionna ir e i t ems ,
the forma t o f wh ich wa s now known t o be compa t i b l e w i th Dms ' manner o f t h ink
ing abou t oc cupa t i ona l cho ic e . The purpo s e , a s we sa id , wa s to tr y to re j e c t a
pa t t ern o f ra t he r surpr i s ing a s we l l as c entra l hypo the s e s der ived from our GDP - I
de c i s ion proc e s s mode l .
Pha s e VII : Int erpr e ta t i on o f the re su l t s o f bo th s t ud ie s , and the sy s t ema t i c
pr e senta t ion o f t he au thor ' s th ink ing t o da t e r e gard ing ma t t er s o f de c i s i on
theory in a forma t and language tha t wou ld b e o f int ere s t to a rea sonab l y
w id e range o f reader s , hope fu l l y cut t ing acro s s the trad i t i ona l d i s c ip l inary
boundar i e s o f a l l i e d f ie l d s o f s tudy . The la t t er pha s e t urned out,p e rhap s
not surpr i s ing ly , by far to b e the mor e d i f f i cu l t s t e p t o imp l ement .
Our summary o f conc l u s ions from t he s t ud y ha s b e en d ivided into the
fo l l owing sub - t i t l e s
I
H Review o f ch ie f emp ir i ca l f ind ing s ;
1 1 . Minor emp ir i ca l f ind ing s ;
III . Concep t ua l contr ibu t ions t o the the ory o f de c i s i on mak ing ;
IV. Imp l i ca t ions for organ i za t i on theory ;
‘2 D ir e c t ions o f fut ure r e s ear ch .
CHIEF EMP IRICAL F INDINGS
I . De c i s i on proce s s pha se s truc ture
The r e por t ed behavior of Dms in the proc e s s o f making th e ir o cc upa
tional cho i ce s cou ld r ead i l y be c la s s i f i e d as b e ing in one o f the fo l lowing
four or f ive De c i s ion Phase s,at any given point . in t ime
Pr ob l em De f in i t ion and/or So lu t i on P lann ing ;
A l t erna t ive s Sear ch and S cr e en ing Eva l ua t i on ;
De c i s i on Conf irma t ion ; or
Po s t -Cho i c e Commi tmen t and Imp l ementa t i on .
The two mor e fre quen t ly encount ere d pha s e s o f th i s s t udy were S ear ch
1and Con f irmat i on . Our hypo the s e s ab ou t the na tur e of Dms Prob l em De f ini t i on
and So lut ion P lann ing pha s e s rema ine d qu i t e con j e c t ura l , as de ta i l e d ob s erva
t i ons on the s e pha se s were ava i lab l e from on l y thre e Dms , two o f who s e pro t o
( 1 )co l s have not ye t b e en repor t ed in e xte ns io .
The impor t anc e o f our d i s t ingu i sh ing be twee n Sear ch pha se s and Con
f irma t ion pha s e s in ob s erva t i ons o f de c i s i on mak ing i s ra t her obviou s : Consi
der a Dm who repor t s tha t he i s pr e sent l y engaged in r ea ch ing a d e c i s i on
wh i ch Dms invar iab l y c l a im t o b e do ing throughou t t he ir Con f irma t ion a s we l l
a s S earch pha s e s . And say we make some mea surement s on th i s Dm's curren t
d e gre e of de c i s i on Unc er ta int y or s ub j e c t ive Impor tance ra t ing s o f goa l attr i
but e s , for examp l e for the purpo s e o f e s t ima t ing the parame t ers o f a Search mode l
cho ice among a l t erna t ive s : I f wha t Dm is rea l ly do ing dur ing t h i s t ime i s
c ons truc t ing argument s to Conf irm an imp l i c i t ly pr e v s e l e cte d a l t erna t ive ,
then our e s t imated mod e l o f h i s -cho i c e be havfixris l ike l y t o turn out to be
e i the r spur i ou s or wrong . And any sub s e quent a t t emp t s on our par t t o in f luenc e
a Dm dur ing h i s Cho i c e Conf irma t i on pha s e on the ba s i s of such a Sear ch theory
de c i s i on eva luati on wou ld l ike l y be rathe r ine f fe ctive a t b e s t .
I I . The Na ture o f Sear ch
Asp ira t ion- leve l S ear ch mode l s o f cho i ce b ehavior u sua l ly r epre sent
Search as an ac t ive hunt -and - f ind pr oc edure , by wh ich a l t erna t ive s are d iscov
ered and eva l ua t e d s e quen t ia l ly , and e i ther Ac cep t e d or Re j e c t ed b e fore a
nex t a l t erna t ive i s Searched for . S earch behavior ob served in th i s s t ud y ,
however , t o ok the form o f Dms ' ini t ia l ac t iva t i on o f , ye t l a t er mere ly pa s s ive
pro c e s s ing o f , th e ou tpu t from a se t o f a l t erna t ive s Genera t ing proc edure s .
S evera l a l t e rna t ive s cou l d thu s be ,and w e re , pr e se nte d t o Dms s imu l taneous l y ,
wi thou t much fur ther ini t ia t ive or d i s cover y e f for t inve s t e d on the ir par t s .
Mor e than one a l t erna t ive were ther e fore a s a r u l e b e ing eva lua t ed in
para l le l b y ea ch Dm a t g iven po in t s in t ime . Eva lua t i on t ook the form o f
a mu l t i - s tage S cre en ing proce s s a l so in c on tra s t t o trad i t iona l c ho i c e
mode l s a t each s tage o f wh i ch Dms were thu s face d wi th making the sub
de c i s ion whe t her or not t o try t o co l l e c t mor e info rma t ion about the a l t er
na t ive be ing Eva l uat ed .
The d e c i s ion - to - inve s t i ga t e - fur ther wa s usua l l y made qu i t e s imp l y
I f t he a l t erna t iv wa s no t Re j e c t ed by Dm a t i t s l a s t Scr e en ing s t age , for
fa i l ing on one 0 more "nec e s sary " goa l -a t tr ibut e s , t hen Dm wou l d de c id e
t o Inve s t i ga t e i t fur ther , un l e s s he happene d t o b e l i eve tha t add i t i ona l
in forma t i on ab ou t th e a l t erna t ive e i ther
i . wa s not ava i lab l e ,
i i . cou ld no t b e ob t a ined u s ing th e S ear ch re sour ce s a t his d i spo sa l , or
i i i . wa s no t go ing to mod i fy h i s pr ior eva lua t i on o f t he a l t erna t ive ' s
b e ing ACCEPTABLE ac cord ing to mo s t o f h is impor t ant goa l a t tr ibu te s .
II I . S ear ch t ermina t i on po int .
Asp ira t i on - l eve l mode l s have the ir Dms t ermina t ing S ear ch for a l t er
na t ive s a s soon a s one of the s e ha s b e e n found to be Ac ce p tab l e , i . e . doe s no t
vio la t e any or t he ma j or i ty o f Dm's goa l -a t tr ibu t e con s tra int s . Dms in t h i s
s tudy d id BEE t ermina t e S earch s imp l y be cau s e an Ac c ep tab l e a l terna t ive had
b e en lo ca t e d . Inde e d more t han a s ing l e a l t erna t ive wa s genera l ly con s ider ed
by Dms to be Ac c ep tab l e a t the ir re spe c t ive po int s o f Se ar ch t ermina t i on .
The la t t er po int in t ime oc curred when e i t her
3 , Dm ran out o f Se arch r e sour ce s for s o lving the pr ob l em a t hand , or
b , a Favor ite ly Acc ep tab l e a l t e rna t ive had b e en d i s cover ed th e
la t t er b e ing one wh ich s cor e d OUTSTANDING on one o f Dm ' s Pr imary
goa l s , and wh i ch exh ib i t ed few i f any obviOu s d e fe c t s a l ong h i s
S e condary goa l s .
We may re s ta t e the propo s i t ion in s l i gh t ly more drama t i c l anguage :
Dm f ir s t d e c i d e s wh i ch a l t erna t ive he i s go ing t o s e le c t . On l y then i s he
ab l e and w i l l ing to ta lk ab out the re l a t ive "we igh t s " t ha t he a s s i gns t o
h i s var ious impor t an t " goa l d imens i ons .
Ut i l i t y- typ e d e c i s ion theor i e s genera l l y a s sume the r ever s e s e que nc ing
o f event s t o b e more de s cr ip t ive o f Dms ' cho ic e pro ce s se s , i .a . tha t e a ch
Dm ha s i n i t i a l l y ava i l ab l e to h imse l f some s e t o f"we igh t s " or order ing
over goa l a t tr ib u t e s , wh i ch i s (wou ld have to b e ) some how mea surab l e a pr ior i
u sua l l y expre s sed theore t i ca l l y a s some form o f exp l i c i t Ut i l i t y func t i on
de f ine d over the doma in o f a l l goa l a t tr ibu t e va lue s . By consu l t ing
th i s goa l func t ion a Dm i s pre sumab ly ab l e t o eva lua t e and rank ord er wha t
ever cho i c e a l t e rna t ive s se t he mi gh t e ncounte r, in any nove l or fami l iar
prob l em cont ex t .
But i f th e la t t er t ype de s cr ip t ion i s anywhere near an ac cura t e way
o f concep tua l i z ing Dms ' goa l s t ruc t ur ing and a l t erna t ive s eva lua t ion proce s
s e s , th en i t shou l d make l i t t l e or no d i f fere nce t o our mea sur ement o f h i s
goa l -a t tr ib ut e order ing sch eme whe the r we per form the se ob serva t i ons b e for e
or a f t er Dm ha s encoun t ered the a l terna t ive tha t he even tua l l y end s up choo s
ing or inde ed whe ther we mea sure h i s (Ut i l i t y ) goa l func t ion wi th Spe c i f i c
r e ference t o e i the r one , t he o ther , or ne i ther o f h is pre s ent l y ava i lab l e
cho i ce a l t erna t ive s . I t ha s b e en d ons trate d in th i s s t udy tha t i t c er ta in ly
doe s make qu i t e a b i t o f d i f fe rence , a t l ea s t i f we are to ac ce p t Dms'ow n word s
and que s t i onna ire re spon se s for i t , in j us t wha t prob l em cont ex t , a s we l l as in
what d e c i s ion pha s e , we happe n t o mea sur e Dms ' r e la t ive order ing s ch ema
for the i r var i ou s "impor t ant " goa l a t tr ibut e s . Ra ther drama t i c sh i f t s in Dms'
a s s i gned goa l a t tr ibut e "we i gh t s " wer e ob s erved over the c our s e o f the ir o c cupa t i ona l
lade c i s i on mak ing .
(
V . De c i s ion pr ed i c t i on
The mor e spe c ta cu l ar cons e quence o f th e GDP -I mode l perhap s is t he
ab i l i t y i t g ive s an ob server t o pr ed i c t , s ome t ime s we eks in advanc e , the
e xact d e cision a l t erna t ive a Dm i s go ing to end up choo s ing wi t hou t , a s
in the ca s e of mo s t a l l o f the h igh l y "programme d de c i s ion pro c e s s e s s t ud i ed
t o da t e , our having to ob s erve b e for ehand t he spe c i f i c parame tr i c de c i s i on
ru l e s tha t Dms in such cho i ce s i t ua t i ons o f t en do s e em t o have deve loped
(2 )cranking out the ir cho i ce s . Inde ed "programmed " de c i s ion ru l e s , in t he
b e ing a lmo s t t r is en se o f a Dms a l t erna t ive s Eva lua t i on and cons e quent Choi c e s
via l ly pred i c t ab l e in advanc e , wer e no t obviou s l y der ivab l e in the t yp i ca l l y
"non-programme d de c i s ion con t ex t tha t we have inve s t i ga t ed .
I t i s t he GDP - I mode l ' s iden t i f i ca t i on o f i . the ex i s t enc e o f , and
i i . th e na ture o f , Dm ' s Con f irmat i on pro ce s s ing o f cho i ce a l t erna t ive s tha t
"clairvoyprovide s u s wi th th i s , i n r e tr0p se ct no t so surpr i s ing , power o f
anc e . In a samp l e o f 32 M . I . T . gradua t e s t ud ent s se ek ing "organ i za t i on s
i n wh i ch t o par t i c ipa t e " , tha t is t o say , j ob s , we t urned ou t t o b e exa c t l y
r igh t 80% o f th e t ime when we se l e c t e d in advance , a1 : whate ve r t ime Dms r epor
t ed t he ir Search for new a l t erna t ive s to b e t ermina t e d , a s ing l e spe c i f i c
a l t erna t ive t o b e each man ' s Cho i ce Cand i da t e in s pi t e o f Dms 'own (and
u sua l l y HIGH ) expr e s sed Unce r t a in ty a t t he t ime o f our pre d ic t i on r e gard ing
wh i ch o f the s e t o f ava i lab l e a l t erna t ive s they wou l d event ua l l y end up
sel e c t ing .
VI . The purpo s e and na t ure o f Con f irma t ion proc e s s ing
However r edundan t Con f irmat ion pro ce s s ing mi gh t s e em t o an ob s erver
who knows wha t ' s go ing on , and in re tro spe c t o f t e n to Dms thems e lve s a s
we l l , the Conf irma t ion pha s e s erve s severa l de c i s i on mak ing func t i on s . In
o ther word s , i f the re ader knows wha t he wan t s to mean by t he t erm ; Confir
ma t ion proc e s s ing i s in many r e spe cts'
quite"ra t iona l " .
F ir s t o f a l l , t here i s d e f in i t e l y a ne ed d ur ing de c i s i on making for
Dms t o fa c e up t o , and somehow t o r e so lve , t he ub iqui t ou s i f admi t t e d ly no
l onger over r id ing "prob l ems tha t s t i l l r ema in w i t h r e spe c t the ir Cho ic e
Cand ida t e , ar i s i ng in par t from
a . r e s i dua l uncer ta int i e s , or o ther -a l t erna t ive s ' dominance of t he
Cho i c e Cand ida t e , a l ong impor t ant goa l a t tr ib ut e s ;
b . que s t ions in the ir minds re gard ing t he impor tance o f cer ta in
un ique or"unu sua l charac t er i s t i c s o f the Cho i ce Cand ida t e ;
c . Dms ' l onge r - t erm , l e s s d e ta i l e d que s t ion s a t the po in t o f Cho ic e
re gard ing cons e quence s of t he impend ing de c i s ion for the ir overa l l
( care er ) P lann ing goa l s ; and/or
d . t he qu i t e prac t i ca l cons idera t i on conne c t e d wi t h imp l ementa t i on
o f the Cho i ce in t he ( o c cupa t i ona l ) ta sk environmen t .
13
"pr e sumab ly ere c t ed i n order to en sur e the exp l i c i t "ra t iona l i t y “ o f the ir
re spe c t ive de c i s i on s , wou ld on o c ca s ion prevent a Dm from re cogn i z ing , and
thu s l ead h im to r e j e c t out o f hand , a perhap s even mor e r a t iona l cho i ce ,
in t erms d f h i s "a c tua l " goa l s truc ture , i f such an "in fac t b e t t er " a l t er
na t ive happened a long a ft e r Dms Conf irma t i on de c i s i on ru l e had b e en fa ir l y
we l l exp l i ca t ed .
In o ther word s , s inc e Dms ' exp l i c i t po s t ho c Conf irma t i on ru l e s wer e
us ua l ly d if fer en t from the much s imp l er dis cr immination pro c edur e b y wh i ch
the y had or igi na l ly mad e the ir Imp l ici t Cho i c e , i t i s on ly r ea sonab l e tha t th e
pre fer enc e orde rs produce d b y the two me t hod s o f ca lcu lationfivith r e spe c t to
two or mor e a l t ernat ive s,
w i l l no t in genera l b e i somorph i c . Thu s we ob s erved
how hard -to - change cogn i t ive Int o l erance and pr e - cho i c e Pre j ud i c e app eare d in h igh
ly"ra t i ona l " de c i s i on maker s ,
VII . Di s sonanc e r educ t i on phenomena
The la s t o f wha t we have labe l e d our chi e f f ind ing s is a mode s t
emp ir i ca l c lar i f i ca t ion and theor e t i ca l e l abora t ion o f t he fami l i ar He ide r ,
Fe s tinge r , e t a l, Dis sonance Reduc t i on no t ion . I t i s t h i s wr i t er ' s pr e s ent
op in ion tha t Di s sonanc e Reduc t i on is a ra th er mi s l ead ing name for a
symp tom o f some Dms' cho i ce in forma t i on proce s se s . It
's exi s t ence , a c cord ing
to th e or i g ina t or s of th e conce p t , is t o b e r e cogn i zed emp ir i ca l l y by
ob s erving increa s e s in a Dm ' s r epor t ed "Liking " or ra t e d gognitive M QDifferM “ M
M -“ f
encgflfl be twg g p_
hisq g epte d and Re je cted alte rnatigg s , fi re spe ctive ly ,, from th eL-h ‘m —f
po int in t ime when Dm ha s announc ed and thu s b e come commi t t ed to h is Cho i ce .
14
A mor e p l ea s ing exp lanat ion o f the a f fe c t ive and cogn i t ive spre ad ing
apar t " phenomena a s so c ia t ed wi th Di s sonanc e Re duc t ion runs as
t he po int in t ime o f the ir Imp l ic i t Cho ic e Dms' engage in a con t inu ing pr o c e s s
o f "int e l l e c tua l i za t ion " , a s we l l a s fea s ib i l i t y t e s t ing , o f the ir cho i ce s .
Be fore th i s int e l l e c t ua l i za t i on , i . e . cons truc t ion o f an exp l i c i t de c i s i on
ru l e for exp la ining h i s Cho i c e , i s an a c comp l i shed fac t a Dm t end s to compe n
sa t e "emo t i ona l ly " , perhap s even per ce p t ua l ly , for h i s l ack o f exp l i c i t ly
cogn i t ive de c i s ion ra t iona l e . An ob s ervab l e symp tom o f th i s comp e nsagon is
t hen the no t ed Di s sonanc e -Reduc t i on amp l i f i ca t ion o f a Dm's r epor t ed L ik ing
d i f feren t ia l b e twe en Cho s en and Re j e c t ed a l t erna t ive s . Bu t a s Con f irma t i on
pro gr e s se s , a s tr onger and s tronger cogn i t ive argument i s b u i l t for why the
Cho i ce Cand ida t e is inde ed b e s t , a s a r e su l t o f wh ich the emo t i ona l and/or
per ce p t ion-d i s tor t i ng symtoms o f Dm ' s a f fe c t ive ra t i ona l i za t ion pro c e s s can
be,and ar e, progr e s s ive ly r e laxed .
Ac cord ing to t h i s mode l the c e l ebra t ed Di s sonance -Re duc t ion ph enomenon
may or may no t b e ob s erved a f t er Con f i rma t ion pro c e s s ing ha s b e en o f f i c i a l l y
a clo s ebrough t t o b y Dm
's a c t s o f Cho ic e announcement and commi tmen t . Ye t the same
mode l , b y a s l igh t var ia t i on in i t s Int e l l e c t ua l i za t i on-pro c e s s ver su s Cho i c e
announcement t iming parame t er s , w i l l a l s o produce pr ed ic t ions tha t the trad i
tional Di s sonanc e -Reduc t i on mea sure s pe ak a f t er the po in t o f Cho i c e Announc e
ment -Commi tmen t , whi ch , a c cord ing to Fe stinge r , i s when Di s sonanc e proper ly
( 4 )“shou ld
"occur
1 5
Never the l e s s , our "int e l l ec t ua l i za t i on mode l of de c i s ion making w i l l
a lways pred i c t tha t Di s sonanc e Reduc t ion symp toms , whe t her they o c cur po s t
Cho ice or no t , wi l l sub s e quen t l y aba t e some t ime a f t er Cho i c e has be en announc ed
"Dms ' deve l op ing exp l i c i t de c i s ion ru l e s , when the la t t er f ina l l y ach ieve fu l l
cogn i t ive ra t i ona l i t y , s oone r or la t er a l low Dms t o r e lax t he ir a f fe c t ive or
"Subcon s c i ous compensa tory e f for t s . In the que s t ionna ir e de c i s i on- pro c e s s
s tudy re ferred to above th i s r e covery charac t er i s t i c o f Dms ' po s t -Cho i ce
Di s sonanc e -Reduc t ion mea sure s wa s c l ear ly demons tra t ed , for tha t sub se t o f Dms who se
re la t ive L ik ing- of- a l t e rna t ive s did exh ib i t any form o f Di s sonanc e Reduct ion
( 5 )Spr ead ing- apar t .
3 . Re fu sa l t o admi t Cho i c e a f t e r Con f i rma t ion commencement
A l though bo th our int ervi ew pro to co l , and sub se quent que s t ionna ire
de c i s ion-proc e s s, s tud ie s turned ou t to y ie l d qu i t e r e l iab l e ba t t ing -average s
for Our ab i l i ty to pr ed i c t Dms' eventua l Cho i c e s a t t ime o f Conf i rmat i on
commenc ement , in j u s t about every ca s e d id the s e same Dms ggpy, e i ther
exp l i c i t l y or b y the ir a s s ignment o f re la t ive ”fina l cho i c e “ l ike l ihood
i nd i ce s , t ha t the ir s e l e c t ion o f the a l t erna t ive t ha t wa s to b e the ir C ho i c e
had inde ed b e en ac comp l i shed , unt i l a t or very c l o se to Conf irma t i on t ermina t ion .
4 . The common mean ing o f”cho i ce among a l t erna t ive s .
"
Dms'who were l e f t w i th on l y one Ac c ep tab l e a l t e rna t ive a t th e t ime
o f Sear ch t ermina t i on expr e s sed fe e l ing s o f b e ing fa c ed wi th a"d il e mma f
Mor e spe c if ical ly, the y fe l t tha t they d id no t have , and wi shed th ey had b e en
provided wi t h ,
"a cho ic e t o make In o ther word s , re j e c t ing a lot of
ra ther ea s i l y Re j e c t ab l e a l t erna t ive s and t hu s b e ing l e f t wi th mere l y one
Ac c ep tab l e one , was s e e n b y Dms contrary to the pre d ic t i on s o f Asp ira t i on
l eve l t he ory a s s omehow depr ivi ng them o f th e ir ” fre edom of cho i c e .
"
In o ther word s , i t se ems a s i f a t l ea s t tw o Good a l t erna t ive s or cand ida t e s
for Ac cep tanc e ar e ne eded in order to make th e i l l us ion o f"fre e cho i c e "
workab l e "
A l though s evera l o f our Dms in t he in t ervi ew s tudy repor t ed mor e t han
two a l t erna t ive s t o b e Ac cep tab l e - a s p l ac e s th ey wou l d g l ad ly go to work for
a t the t ime o f the ir Search t ermina t i on , i t d id not take them much Conf irma
t i on pro c e s s ing t o re duce th i s s e t t o two , and on ly two , a l t erna t ive s wh i ch
we t he n lab e l e d , r e spe c t ive l y , the i r Cho i c e and Con f irma t ion Cand ida t e s .
e ] . w a. 9 , L u ( A h -L b “ y ( C Ub c UU H IP U L Q L LU LIQ
the ir Conf i rma t i on proce s s ing by focu s s ing on mere l y two a l t erna t ive s for
th e ir a l t erna t ive -by-a l t erna t ive compar i son o f cho ic e pos s ibil itie s . (Remembe r , up
unt i l t h i s po in t in the i r de c i s i on making Dms had eva l ua t ed a l t erna t ive s
"ab so l u t e ly on the ir own mer i t s , one b y one , and had car e fu l ly avo i de d
mak ing int er-a l t ernat ive — compar i son computa t ion s , exc ep t for s imp l e Par e to
dominance ch e cks among so ca l l ed 's imi lar " a l t erna t ive s . )
The func t i ona l r ea son for Dms ' u t i l i z ing a Conf irma t i on Cand i da t e
for the ir f ina l de c i s i on de l ib era t i on s i s fa ir ly obvi ou s by our inte rpr e
tation o f th e pro c e s s ; Dm's f ina l d e c i s i on ru l e , his exp l i c i t ra t i ona l e
for why he cho se th e way h e d i d , i s in large par t r e la t ivi s t i c , i . e . a Dm
c la ims he De c i ded no t mer e ly be cau se h i s Cho i c e Cand ida t e wa s GOOD or OK
a l ong c er ta in cr i t i ca l d imens i on s , but "b e cau s e " t he l a t t er wa s BETTER than
some o ther , a l so s e eming l y r ea sonab l e a l t erna t ive s . Ut i l i za t i on o f a sing l e ~ s e cond
b e st" a ft er-na t ive wou ld b e the s imp l e s t and mo s t exped i en t way f or Dms to
re pre s ent the s e t o f ‘hl l'
othe f'alte rnative s The very id i o syncra t i c
de c i s ion ru l e tum“: exp la ins how Cho ic e b e a t s t he Con f irma t i on Cand ida t e Can th en
b e come, b y f ia t o f s emant ic genera l i za t i on , Dms ' ba s i s for r ea son ing tha t
th e ir re sp e c t ive Cho i c e s mus t be"be s t
"re lative to
"a l l o t her alte rnative s f'
Cau tion
What ha s be e n snmmmr ize d above a s b e i ng our var iou s ch i e f and sub s id i ary
emp ir i ca l f ind ing s " ar e t o a large ext ent ba s ed on th e au thor ' s int erpre ta t i on
o f o f t en qui t e d i s turb ing ly sma l l samp l e s o f ob s erva t i on s . The r eader mu s t
ther e fore b e r e ferred t o our much l e s s aggr e ga t e d ana l ys e s o f the ob served
6de c i s ion pro ce s s da ta , r epor t ed e l s ewhere ,
( )l n order to l e arn from the n1 tx> e xe r
c i se . th e prop er caut i on in accep t ing and genera l i z ing from th e above-int er
pr e te d f inding s .
CONCEPTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE THEORY OF DEC IS ION MAKING
The two no t ion s , Ut i l i ty and Probab i l i t y , have too long r e i gned the
f i e ld a s the ch i e f conc ept ua l bu i ld ing b lo cks o f b ehavi or a l de c i s ion theory .
Par t o f th e rea son for t h i s s t a t e o f a f fa ir s sur e l y ha s to do wi th th e ra ther
p l ea s ing ana l yt i ca l e l e ganc e o f ma thema t i ca l Probability/Utility l anguage .
Moreover , a t l ea s t in th e e ye s o f t he or i s t s w ho have not tr oub l ed to l ook
much fur t her , i t may se em obviou s l y obv iou s t ha t human d e c i s ion maker s "mu s t "
u t i l i z e some ver s ion o f Ut i l i t y for imp ut ing Va l ue t o cho i ce c on se quenc e s ,
a s we l l as s ome ver s ion o f Probab i l i t y for repre s en t ing d i f fer ent ia l l y per
ce ive d Unc er ta int y abou t wha t ever cons e quenc e s t hey be l i eve migh t fo l l ow
the ir se l e c t i on o f any one cho i ce a l t erna t ive .
Ye t one canno t he lp s u sp e c t ing tha t par t o f t he r ea son why Ut i l i t y
and Probab i l i t y cont inue t o domina t e t he f ie ld , in s p i t e o f some obviOu s
ob j e c t i ons t o t he ir re a sonab l ene s s emp ir i ca l l y , mu s t b e tha t de c i s ion theor i s t s
have genera l l y fe l t hard pu t t o th ink up concep t ua l a l t e rna t ive s to the s e
no t i ons . The so l e contr ibu t i ons in th i s r egard , up un t i l ver y r e c ent ly , s e em
(8 )to have come from the pens o f e i t her H .A . S imon or G . L . S . Schackle .
Be l ow the n fo l l ows a br i e f inven tory o f the author ' s own b e l i e f s and
d i sb e l i e f s a t pre s ent ab ou t wha t s e em t o be c omputa t i ona l l y r ea sonab l e , a s
we l l as even conce ivab ly in t erpre tab l e , concep t s for u s to invoke when con
structing d e s cr ip t ive mod e l s o f human d e c i s i on b ehavi or .
Lex i cograph i c Ut i l i ty
Lex ic ograph i c Ut i l i ty answer s t he We ight ing cr i t i c i sm head on . A s
Ch ipman ha s shown , Lex icograph ic Ut i l i ty i s a genera l c la s s o f order s from
wh ich Sca lar Ut i l i t y can be der ive d ana ly t i ca l l y mer e ly by imposing on
( 10)them t he ax iom o f Sub s t i t u tab i l i t y . Lex i cograph ic Ut i l i ty is t hu s much
mor e a t trac t ive to emp ir ic i s t s d ue to t he mor e mode s t c l a ims i t make s abo ut
Dm ' s ab i l i t y t o compar e Va lue s a long d i f fer en t goa l d imens ion s .
Bu t Lex icograph ic Ut i l i t y i s unr ea sonab l e in o ther ways . I t impo s e s
on Dm the cons tra int tha t he po s s e s s a f ixed and l inear order among a l l
h i s goa l a t tr ibu t e s or d imen s ions , s uch tha t an a l t erna t ive ' s b e ing Be t t er
or Sa t i s fa c tory on a "h igher order “ a t tr ibu t e w i l l a lways b e a s uf f i c i ent
cond i t ion for Cho i c e or Ac c ep t anc e to b e made , re gard l e s s o f wha t t he
a l t erna t ive ' s ra t ing mi gh t b e on any o ther , lower “ goa l d imens ion . Thu s
i t s e ems t ha t we have thr own the Mu l t i d imens iona l baby out wi t h the We i gh t
iting ba thwa t er a s in mo s t ca se s we mi gh t expe c t on l y th e one or tw o“t0p
goa l a t tr ibu t e s t o exer t e f fe c t ive de c i s ion making power .
Ye t s top a moment . There doe s ex i s t a c l a s s o f de c i s ion prob l ems
for wh i ch a r e sonab ly pure l ex icograph i c may ex i s t among Dm§ goa l a t tr ibut e s .
I f anch orde r ing i s not l inear over ind ivid ua l a t tr ibu t e s i t may a t l ea s t b e
l inear over sub s e t s o f a t tr ibu t e cons tra int s : In de c i s i on prob l ems d e fine d b}r
f e cur S iVé app l i ca t i on O f soca l l e d "means - e nd s " he ur is tns , such t ha t a h ie r
ar chy o f a t tr ibu t e s is d er ived,f l owing from a s ing l e me ta - goa l mea sur e ,
it -migh t ind e e d tmz apprOpr ia te to re ca s t Dm ' s Va lue s tru c t ur e into Le xico
graph i c t ermino logy .
(1 1 )
Mu l t idimen s i ona l Cons tra int s (or Aspir a t i on- l eve l s )
2S imon ' s Mu lti d ime nS iona l C ons tra in.t:s noti on
( 1 )do e s away W i t h a l l order
ing among goa l a t tr ibu t e s . Every goa l d imens i on i s thu s conc e ived o f a s
be ing j u s t a s impor tant " to Dm . Vio la t ion o f any one o f t hem wi l l t hen b e
su f f ic ie n t cau s e for h im to Re j e c t a cho ic e a l t erna t ive ; or e l s e to mod i fy
the cons tra in t or Asp ira t ion-l eve l b e ing vio la t ed . In S imon ' s dynami c mode l s
bo th o f the la t t er event s are pr ed i c t e d to o c cur , bu t a t d i f ferent ra t e s .
( 1 3 )
Prob l ems ar i s e wi th th e Mu l t id imens i ona l Con s tra int no t ion under the
fo l low ing, empir ical ly qu i t e common cond i t ions : i . Dm i s fac e d w i th tw o or
mor e Ac c ep tabl e a l t erna t ive s , among wh i ch he ha s to p i ck one ; i i . Dm is
l e f t w i t h no a l t erna t ive s t ha t ar e Ac c ep tab l e a c cord ing to h i s Mu ltid ime n
s ional Con s tra int s , ye t he ne ed s somehow to arr ive a t a cho i c e of one from
the s e t o f in i t ia l l y Re j e c tab l e a l t erna t ive s .
The conc ept ua l prob lem thus id ent i f ie d se ems to ar i s e b e caus e the
Mu l t i d imens iona l Cons tra ints or Asp ira t io n- l eve l s no t ion i s a b i t too s imp le .
It appear s t ha t we wi l l have to a s smme that IM B po s s e s s, and are ab l e to u t i l i z e,
some no t ion o f or der among goa l -a t tr ibut e s hope fu l l y a s t ab l e and a pr ior i
emp ir i ca l l y mea surab l e one in order tha t we b e ab l e to exp l a in how Dms
re so lve e i t her o f t he la s t ment i oned t ypes b f de c i s ion conf l i c t .
Pr imary- Se condary-Auxil l iary Goa l At tr ibu t e s
The no t ion sugge s t e d by the au t hor i s one o f a s imp l e d ua l , in rar e
ca se s perhap s t er t iary , order ing among s e t s o f Dm's goa l a t tr ibut e s
23
‘
i .
"Auxil liary
" a t tr ibu t e s wo u ld b e tho s e large ly vo id o f de c i s ion power ,
tha t s e em1 x> be emp loye d by Dms for e labora t ing a ra t iona l e for "why the ir cho ice
i s be s t ”
, onc e i t ha s be e n de t ermined .
-ii ;“Se condary ” goa l a t tr i bu te s s erve a s a s e t o f s emi - inde pend en t , a l though
by no mean s or thogona l , cons tra int s on Dm ' s d e c i s io n . We w i l l exp e c t a Dm t o po s
se s s a cr i t ic a l Re j e c t i on thre sho l d , i . e . a "ne ce s sary l eve l o f Va lue , bu t
no t to exh ib i t an Automa t i c Ac c ep tanc e (Asp ira t ion- l eve l ) thr e sho ld , i . e .
"su f fi c i ent ” l eve l s o f Va lue , wi t h re s pe c t to h i s S e condar y go a l d imens ions .
For c er ta in c la s s e s o f pr ob l em de f in i t ions Dm's S e condary goa l a t tr ibut e s
may be shown to have be e n der ive d a s the "means in a s ing l e - s tage or few
s tage means - end s ana l ys i s o f his pr ob l em .
i i i .
"Pr imary goa l a t tr ib ut e s wou ld t hen po s s e s s t he fu l l -dr e s s dua l s e t
o f "cr i t i ca l Va lu e” 1e ve l s : a Re j e c t ion l eve l , b e low wh i ch any a l t erna t ive
wou l d b e immed ia t e ly r e j e c t e d , and an A c c ep tanc e l eve l , above wh i ch the a l t er
na t ive wo u ld b e immed ia t e l y , i f f ir s t on l y imp l i c i t l y , a c c e p t ed provid e d that
the a l t erna t ive d i d no t s imu l t aneou s l y vio la t e Dm ' s o ther Pr imary and Se con
dary Re j e c t i on l eve l s .
Ti e s among Po t en t i a l l y Ac c ep tab l e a l t erna t ive s , i . e . ca s e s w i th
none Automa t i ca l l y Ac ce p tab l e bu t wi t h two or mor e a l t erna t ive s fa l l ing in ~
be twe e n “on Dm ' s Pr imar y goa l s,and
”above “on h i s S e condary one s , wou ld
,
we hypo the s i ze)
be re so lved by Dm ' s fo cus s ing on , and impo s ing a somewha t
f iner , s emi -card ina l s ca l ing o f , h i s Ra t i ng o f t he conf l i c t e d a l t erna t ive s
25
i i . Probab i l i t y theory r e qu ire s t ha t Dm ' s cod ing o f Uncer ta inty b e cont in
uou s a s we l l a s intra -a l t erna t ive ra t io s ca l ed . Wher ea s t he f ir s t
proper t y may no t cons t i t ut e a s e r iOu s ob j e c t ion to our adop t ion o f
Probab i l i t y t he ory a s a rea sonab l e way of repre sen t ing Dm ' s d i f fer
e ntia l ly fe l t Unc er ta int y among con s e quence s a s we can r ead i l y
imag ine a s t ep -wi s e , f in i t e Pr obab i l i t y theor y the a s s ump t ion
do e s ra i s e the fo l l owing que s t ion s , wh i ch can on ly b e s e t t l e d empir
ica l ly f
a . J u s t how large a j us t no t i c eab l e d i f ferenc e int erva l ar e/
ar e we to a s sume tha t Dms u t i l i ze for purpo s e s o f our f in i t e
the ory o f probab i l i t y , i s i t , for examp l e , mor e rea sonab l e
to a s sume a B inar y or a Dig i ta l Probab i l i t y s ca l e
The choi c e o f s ca l e — d iv i s i on i s impor tant b e cause i t in t urn he lp s
d e t ermine wha t mi ght b e r ea sonab l e r u l e s o f Probab i l i t y tran s forma t ion to
a s sume . For examp l e , in t he Binar y ca s e , a l lowing for expr e s s ion o f mer e ly
HI ver su s LO Probab i l i t i e s , t he l og i ca l un ion of tw o LO
Probab i l i t ie s migh t b e rea sonab ly a s sumed to y ie ld ano ther LO Probab i l i t y .
Simiiar ly the un ion o f a B inary HI and a LO Probab i l i ty wo u ld a l so b e e xp e c
t ed t o y i e l d a LO Probab i l i ty , e t c . However , i f we a s sumed or found
by ob serva t ion tha t Dm ' s Probab i l i t y d is cr imminations wer e more near l y
Ter t iary , the n the un ion of a H I and LO Probab i l i ty cou ld. mor e . like ly b e
expe c t e d t o y i e l d MEDIUM Probab i l i t y "
26
To add fur ther to the confus ion : Ther e exi s t s ev idence 1 . t ha t Dms
ar e ab l e t o dis cr imminate qui t e f ine jnd's among s er ia l l y pre sent ed ob j e c t ive
fre quency tha t Dms po s se s s a p er cep tua l appara t u s wh i ch in
pr inc ip l e wo u l d b e mor e than ade qua t e for cod ing re l i ab ly qu i t e f ine d i s cr im
minations inde ed among Fr e quency Probab i l i ty quant i t ie s ; ye t 2 . when Opera
t ing wi t h Uncer ta i nt y in a c tua l cho i c e s i tua t i ons b ehave pragma t i ca l l y a s
i f symbo l i ca l ly t he y u t i l i z ed much rougher shade s o f d e c i s ion "Probab i l i ty "
t han the y are thu s pr e sumab l y capab l e o f . Th i s ob s erva t ion cou ld conce ivab l y
be mad e t o suppor t the hypo the s i s t ha t Dms u t i l i ze d i f ferent s cales o f Proba
bility s ca l ing , i f we b e l ieved in "Probab i l i t y " , for d i f ferent type s o f
d e c i s i on purpo se s such tha t a ma j or pr ob l em for Behavi ora l Probab i l i t y
t heory wou ld b e t o d e te rmine,and b e ab l e t o pre d ict,unde r wha t spe c i f i c c i r
cumstance s a Dm wou ld u s e wha t j nd - s i ze for s c a l i ng his per ce ived Unc er ta int y
b . The s e cond s ca l ing prope r t y of trad i t iona l Prob a
bility measur e s i s no l e s s d i s turb ing : Wha t emp ir i ca l
a s surance have we go t t ha t Dms ind e e d per ce ive and code
Unc er ta inty in th e r e qu ir ed ra t io -s ca l ed manner e .g . tha t
Dms wou ld not be mor e appropr i a t e ly de s cr i bed a s u t i l i z ing a
'% ubbe r -ru l er uni t " card i na l s c a l e , or e l se a s per ce iv ing mer e l y
ord ina l d i f ference s among Uncer ta int y "quan t i t i e s , i f
i nde ed Dms can b e a s sumed t o impo s e or u t i l i z e gpy sor t o f
sy s t ema t i c ord er ing on wha t ever "Uncer ta in t i e s " t hey app e ar antly
do a s so c i a t e wi th ( o th erwi s e ofte n . uncompare d ) mu l t ip le out come s
o f t he ir d e c i s ion a l terna t ive s"
(In o ther and ho pe fu l ly somewha t p la iner word s , ha s anyone ever b e en
ab le t o d emons tr a t e emp ir i ca l ly t he ex i s t enc e o f Dms w ho b ehave a s i f th e y
ut i l i z ed Probab i listic Risk Uncer t a in ty in the ir d e c is ion making , in con
tr a s t t o i t s h i t her to on l y co nc ep t ua l i zed t heor e t i ca l a lterna t ive , name l y
non-Probab i l i s t i c ”Pur e ” Unc er ta int y" Tha t the d i s t inc t ion be twe en d i f fer
e ntiate d"Ri sk " and und i f fer en t ia t ed Unc er t a int y ”
is n i c e to ta lk abo ut in
ana l yt i ca l t erms doe s no t , obv iou s l y , imp l y t ha t the conc ep t a l so w i l l
b e us e fu l in emp i r ica l ana l ys e s . In t he paragraph s b e l ow we wi l l sugge s t
t o t he r e ader an a l t erna t ive , and perhap s emp ir i ca l l y mor e r ea sonab l e ,
way o f conc ep t ua l i z ing a Dm's re pre sen ta t ion o f d i f feren t ia t ed de c i s ion
Unc er ta int y " .
P“
Li i i . An unque s t i oned imp l i c i t a s sump t ion o f a l l app l i ca t ions o f mathe mati
c a l Probab i l i t y th eory i s tha t Unc er ta in Dms per c e ive mu l t ip l e fa c t ua l
Con se quenc e s a s po s s ib l y f l ow ing from th e ir Cho ic e o f any one a l t er
na t ive . Th e c la s s i ca l conc ep tua l parad igm 1nay be p i c tur ed t hu s
Ut i l i ty1 1
A l t erna t ive1
Cons e que nce Uti l ityl il i
over wh ich Con se quence s s e t , i l n , Dm i s th en though t to
d i s tr ibu t e h i s Probab i l i t y ind i c e s . On the o the r hand , from our
ob s erva t ions of de c i s ion maker s in ac t io n the fo l low ing s e emed to
b e , for a ma j or i t y o f the s e ca s e s , a mor e r ea sonab l e manner o f r ept e
s en t ing Dm ' s manner o f de s cr ib ing h is a l t erna t ive s
A l t erna t ive1
Va lue1
where Va lue1i s a mu l t id imens i ona l Pr imary/Se condary s truc t ur e o f a t tr ib ut e
Va lue sf of the type a lready de s cr ib ed above .
29
b . Dms , a t lea s t for the prob l em con tex t in wh ich we s tud ie d t hem,
d e s cr ib ed a l t erna t ive s a s i f , in the t ermino l ogy o f Probab il is itc de c i s ion
theory , e ach one mer e ly had a un ique Cons e quenc e a s so c ia t ed wi th i t . In
o ther word s , no mor e than s ing l e - s tage d ee p "if - t he n ” mean s - end s ana lys i s
wa s invoked by Dms when eva lua ti ng cho ice a lte rnative s , and, a c th i s f ir s t
"if - t hen " le ve l
,not more than one s ta t e -o f- t he -wor l d con se quence d e s cr ip
t ion wa s u sua l ly a s soc ia te d wi t h ea ch a l t erna t ive . Shou ld t h i s then b e t aken
to mean t ha t our Dms be haved a s i f t he y wer e making de c i s i ons under Cer ta int y,
i . e . t ha t de c i s i on Uncer ta int y is a conc ep t r edundan t for d e s cr ib ing
cho ic e o f the t yp e t hat we s tud ied"
By no means" Unc er ta in t y wa s r e por t ed ly r ea l enough wi th mo s t o f
the Dms ob s erved . I t ' s"
u s t t ha t thgy se eme d tg _ re pL§ sent it_ § if fe r e ntly
than wha t curr e nt"
PtQ hability Risk"the or ie s pre scr ibe . The au thor ha s propo s ed
us ing the fo l l ow ing ve c tor parad i gm for conc ep tua l i z ing Dm ' s ” f e l t d i f fer
e ntiate d Uncer ta int y " o f a cho ic e a l t erna t ive
7Va l ue At tr ib ut e
1 1
A l t erna t ive — s > Va l ue At tr ibu t e1 1 1
Va l ue At tr ibu t el n
where in any Va l ue - a t tr ibut e may b e Unc er t a in in t he s en se tha t Dm r e fus e s
t o , i . e . fe e l s unab l e to , spe c i fy a un i que Va lue r a t ing o f the a l t erna t ive
a l ong tha t par t i cu lar goa l d imens ion in wh ich ca s e Dm simply r esign s h im
se l f t o cons id er ing the a l t erna t ive a s hav ing a "probab l e ” Va lue range a long
30
Unc er ta in goa l a t tr ibu t e .
"Probab l e " doe s no t a t a l l imp ly a form of d istr i
butive Probab i l i ty . I t mere ly ind i ca t e s , in Dm ' s manner o f th ink ing , t ha t
the tr ue Va lue ra t ing i s LIKELY un i form ly d i s tr ibu t ed a s i t wer e t o
exi s t in s ide tho s e range l imi t -po int s , and UNL IKELY to be found to fa l l out
s i de th i s rang e .
Thu s , wi th no mor e Soph i s t i ca t ed no t i on s than "Like ly/Unl ike ly and
"pur e Unc er ta int y range mea sure in mu l t i d imens iona lan und i f feren t ia t ed
Va l ue - a t tr i but e space , ar e Dms ab l e t o conc ep tua l i ze and compare Unc er ta in
de c i s i on a l t erna t ive s in a manner we l l -n igh a s d i f fer ent i a t ed a nd computa
tional ly s oph i s t i ca t ed a s any "exp e c t e d va lue " ar i t hme t i c so c eremon iou s ly
pre s cr ib ed b y ra t i o - s ca l ed mathemat i ca l Probab i l i ty th e ory .
(dus t how Dms Opera t e wi th th i s , wha t we mi gh t ca l l Po s sibilistic form
o f Unc er ta in ty , i . e . how Dms aré inde ed ab l e to c ompar e and rank order a l t erna
t ivas , the Unc er ta in Va lue s o f wh i ch ar e de s cr ib ed in the manner sugge s t e d , i s
a sub j e c t we do not have enough spa ce t o dwe l l on a t th i s po int .
( 1 9 )
fo l lowing , our la s t , concep t ua l -emp ir i ca l cr i t i c i sm o f t rad i t i ona l Probab i l i ty
Even so , the
no t ions goe s par t o f t he way in sugge s t ing how t h i s wr i t er ha s r e conc ep tua l i zed
Dms ' manne r o f Opera t ing wi th Unc er ta in a l t erna t ive s in a cho i c e s i tua t i on
iv . In c la s s i ca l d e c i s ion theor i e s S ear ch i s not even a r e l evant con cep t ,
a l l ava i lab l e a l t erna t ive s and in forma t i on ar e pr e sume d to b e provided
to Dm b e forehand . In neo -c la s s i ca l Asp ira t i on- l eve l thur y S ear ch is
a c entra l concep t , bu t on l y in the s ens e o f S ear ch- for -new-a l t erna t ive s .
However , S ear ch- for - informa t i on w i t h in found a l t erna t ive s , wha t we
mi gh t s imp ly ca l l "Inve s t i ga t i on" , i s an obv iou s a sp e c t o f mo s t d e c i
s i on de l ib era t i on s .
(21 )
3 1
Our cr i t i c i sm in t h i s r e gard o f trad i t iona l Pr obab i l i t y Oho ice para
d igms t hen fo l lows d ir e c t l y :
Probab i l i t y theory a s s ume s t ha t Dm code s h i s f e l t Unc er ta int y a s i f
i t were the func t i ona l e qu iva l e nt o f a ma thema t i ca l Opera tor , wi th wh ich h e
i s t hen pre sume d to mod i fy h i s r a t e d Va lue (Ut i l i t y ) o f t he Uncer ta in a l t er
na t ive . Wher ea s we be l i eve , obvio us l y , th a t wha t mo s t Dms d o in mo s t ca s e s
i s to tr ea t fe l t Unc er ta int y r e pre se nt e d a s goa l a t tr ibu t e range ra t ing s
j u s t ind i ca t e d not a s an Opera t or b ut a s a d e c i s ion var iab l e : "Ib o much
Uncer ta int y wi l l tr igger Dms to go out and Inve s t i ga t e ( S ear ch ) t ha t a l t erna
t ive fur t her .
In th i s r e spe c t we migh t hypo t he s i ze tha t Dms po s s e s s t he e qu iva l en t
of
o f a Re j e c t i on - l eve l to l erab l e Unc er ta in ty . Bu t t he l a t t er no t i on , on
s e cond t hough t , i s s e en to be a s l ippery and probab l y u s e l e s s conc ep t , s inc e
any Dm's
"Unc er ta in ty Re j e c t ion- l eve l " wou ld s ur e ly var y w i t h the curre nt
Pha s e o f h i s d e c i s ion pro c e s s , a s we l l a s wi t h the Spe c i f i c c ir cums tanc e s
o f the par t icu lar s e t o f Unc er ta in a l t erna t ive s among wh i ch Dm mi gh t wan t
21to d is cr imminate
'
mor e c er ta i n l y "
S ear ch for a l t erna t ive s
The Sear ch fo r a l t erna t ive s no t i on i s ano ther de c i s i on t heor e t i ca l
conc ep t var iab l e t he pre s ent s t ud y ha s s erved to c lar i fy . In the u sua l S imon
typ e Asp ira t ion- l eve l mode l s S e ar ch i s conc e ptuta l ize d a s an a c t ive "hun t
and - f ind "r o c e s s w he r e b ne w cho ic e a l t erna t ive s ar e active l l o ca t e d s e uena y
33
De s i gn- t e s t -and -mod i fy type Sear ch ha s ye t t o b e s t ud i ed in ade qua t e
pro ce s s d e ta i l b y th i s wr i t er , bu t r ea sonab ly pur e examp l e s of DTM- t yp e Se ar ch
shou ld c ome out o f s tud i e s o f b ehavior in Re s ear ch - and - Deve lopment t yp e prob
l em cont ext s . Br i e f l y , DTM- t ype d e c i s i on prob l ems wou ld be chara c t er i z ed b y
th e l ack o f a we l l - s t ruc tur e d de f ini t i on o f Dm ' s t a sk environment ,
wi t h r e spe c t t o wh i ch he mi gh t conc e ivab ly have admin i s t er ed Hunt
and - f ind t yp e heur i s t i c s ;
‘
i . an appe arant la ck o f e f f e c t i ve Ge nera t or s wi th wh i ch to produc e6
a s e t o f even minima l ly ac cep tab l e cho i c e a l t erna t ive s ;
i i i . Dm's fo cu s on one , or a t mo s t two , De s i gn Ba s e s , i . e . r ough out
l ine s of a de c i s i on a l t ernat ive , wi t h in t he broad i ni t i a l spe cifi
ca t ions o f wh i ch Dm wi l l th en Sear ch cumu la t ive l y for a viab l e
so lu t i on tha t sa t i s f i e s h i s prob l em ' s Pr imary and S e condary goa l
a t tr ibu t e s .
DTM d e c i s i on pro c e s s e s wou ld thu s not e a s i l y b e d e s cr ibab le in t rad i t i ona l
d i s cover y and sub s e quent e va lua t i on o f we l l -de f ined a l te rna t ive s " t erms . .
Mor e t yp i ca l o f DT M S e ar ch wou l d b e Dm ' s e f for t s t o d er ive , and then sa t i s fy ,
succ e s s ive ly mor e Opera t i ona l and d e ta i l e d pr ob l em/goal a t tr ibu t e s wi t h r e spe c t
t o a s ing l e a l t erna t ive or , in o ther word s , h i s t ry ing t o come up wi t h new
id ea s and workab l e me thod s for over coming the s e t o f (par t l y h i erar ch i ca l )
cons tra int s on h i s De s i gn Ba s i s tha t h i s r e cur s ive DTM Inve s t i ga t ion o f tha t
a l t erna t ive kep t l ead ing h im t o id ent i fy .
Al t erna t ive s Eva lua t ion
Trad i t i ona l mod e l s de s cr ib e Dms ' a l t erna t ive s Eva lua t ion a s i f i t wer e
a one - sho t Va l ue -a s s i gnmen t -to -re ce i ved -c on se quenc e s trans forma t i on . Th i s
s tudy sugge s t s tha t we r e vis e tfi fi4 ; notion and her ea f t er con s id er A l t erna tive s
Eva lua t i on t o b e a tw o- s t ep pro c e s s , c on s i s t ing a s i t wer e of
a . Se arch Eva lua t ion and
b . Con firma t i on Eva lua t i on , suc ce s s ive ly .
Le t u s on l y br ie f ly summar i z e t he ma in chara c t er i s t i c s o f e ach Eva lua t ion
pha s e : Dms ' ini t ia l S e ar ch é e va luation o f :any one ;alte rnative . s e em s be tt e r
de s cr i bed a s a mu l t i - s tage Inve s t i ga t i on and Scr e e ning pro ced ur e , a t ea ch
s tage o f wh ich Dms are fa ce d wi t h an Oppor t uni t y t o d e c id e whe ther or not
t o engage in ano th er round o f Inve s t i gati on o f t he a l t erna t ive . In o ther
word s , a t ea ch in t ermed iary s t age a g iven a l t e rna t ive i s eva lua t ed on ly
par t i a l ly by b e ing S cr ee ned over wha t ever sub - s e t o f h i s Pri mary and S e con
dary goa l -a t tr i bu t e s Dm ha s t i l l t hen managed to Ob ta in su f f i c i en t ly Cer t a in
in format i on ab ou t i . e . is wi l l ing to a s s i gn a suf f ic i en t l y narrow range
o f LIKELY Va l ue ra t ing s t o , re la t ive to his S cr e en Re j e c t l eve l s .
Dur ing Sear ch - eva l ua t i on each de c i s ion a l t erna t ive i s i n e f fe c t e valu
a t ed "ab so l ut e l y ,
"i . e . each o f the la t t er ' s goa l a t tr ibu t e Va l ue ra t ing s i s
compar ed , s emi -ind ep endent l y of a l l o f Dm ' s o ther goa l a t tr ibu t e s or a l t erna
tive s , to tha t a t t r ibu t e ' s own Re j e c t i on l eve l , and , i f t he a t t r ibut e in
que s t i on happe ns to be a Pr imar y Va lue , t o i t s Ac c ep tance - l eve l a s we l l
To e labora t e j u s t a l i t t l e on th i s po in t , dur ing in i t i a l S ear ch -e valu
a t i on a g iven a l t erna t ive doe s no t nee d t o be , and is in fac t no t , compar ed to
any o f Dm's o ther cho ice a l t erna t ive s excep t for a qu i ck ch e ck for po s s ib l e
Pare t o domina t ion by a Dmrp e rc e ive d"s imi l ar " and a l so Po t e nt i a l l y Ac cep tab l e
a l t ernat ive . In shor t , dur ing S ear ch -eva lua t i on Dms ' a l t erna t ive s ge t them
se lve s mer e l y re j e c t ed , such tha t in on ly t he rar e ca s e w i l l a g iven a l t er
na t ive b e Ac cep t e d immed ia t e ly s imp ly b e cau s e it happ en s t o b e found Ac c ep tab l e .
F u
Thu s Dms wi l l usua l l y t ermina t e the ir S ear ch for new a l t ern a t ive s W i t h
mor e than one Ac cep t ab l e a l t erna t ive ac t ive ly under con s id erati on .
Dur ing Con f i rma t i on-eva l ua t ion the empha s i s then sh i f t s to Dms '
"r e l a t ive " compar i son o f the i r a l t erna t ive s . Bu t , a s a lr e ady no t ed, a l l too
fr e quent ly p erhap s , b y th i s po int in the i r d e c i s i on-making mo s t Dms ' s e em
large ly to have a c comp l i shed th e S e l e c t ion o f wh i ch par t icu lar a l t erna t ive ,
from the ir "ac t ive " se t s o f Avai lab l e Ac c ep tab l e one s , i s e vent ua l l y to be come
the ir F ina l Cho ic e .
Thu s Conf irma t ion - eva l ua t ion o f a l t erna t ive s t ake s on a f lavor O f po s t -ho e
irra t i ona l.rationa l i za t i on . Y e t t her e i s l i t t l e doub t in the wr i t er ' s mind
tha t th i s s t ep in Dms ' a l t erna t ive s Eva l ua t ion serve s qu i t e func t iona l pur
po s e s b e s i de s fu l f i l l ing Dms ' ne ed - for -inte l l e ctua l iZation o f t he ir a lready
imp l i c itl y "fe l t " cho ice b ia se s : The pro c e s s in e f fe c t enab l e s a Dm t o
conc entra t e h i s a t t en t i on on r e so lving wha t ever prob l ems mi gh t r ema in wi t h
re spe c t t o h i s Favor i t e a l t erna t ive a s we sa id , common ly due t o the la t
t er ' s S e condary Unce r taintie s,or po s s ib l e con s tra int vio lations
,and/or the
Favor i t e ' s b e ing domina t ed b y ano ther , a lmo s t -a s -good a l t erna t ive a long impor
tant goa l d imens ions b e fore h e a t la s t commi t s h imse l f pub l ica l ly and
uncond i t iona l ly t o fo l l ow h i s "in tu i t ive"i . e . Pr imary-goa l,fe e l ing s down
t he garden pa th to F ina l Cho i c e .
A . Organ i za t iona l par t ic ipa t ion
One immed ia te imp l ic a t ion o f our rev is ed mode l is tha t ind ividua l s '
organ iza t iona l par t ic i pa t ion de c i s ions, i . e . Dm ' s cho ic e s w h e th e r or no t to
l eave o r j o in a g iven organ i za t ion, is expe c t e d t o be mor e s tab le and
d i f f icu l t to over turn than pro po s ed organ i za t iona l par t ic ipa t ion mode l s mi gh t l e ad
(27 )us to expe c t .
The mor e prominent o f th e s e mod e l s,the Barnard- S imon induc emen t s
c ontr ibu t ions " th eory,s ta te s qu i t e s tra igh t forw ard ly tha t Dms w i l l le ave
or sw i tch organ i zat ions wh enever the ir to ta l Sc a lar Ut i l i ty, i . e . induc e
men t s " , rec e ived fr om th e ir cu rr en t or gan i za t ion is l e s s than th e t o ta l
Sc a lar U t i l i ty , i . e . c ontr ibu t i ons o f fer ed by some o th e r organ i za t ion .
The emp ir ic a l c on te nt o f the pre po s ition depend s c r i t ica l ly , some migh t c l a im
d isas te rou s ly , on our ab i l i ty to in t erpre t emp ir ica l ly and to mea sur e a
pr ior i a Dm's
" to ta l Sc a lar Ut i l i ty" re c e ive d from, o r expec te d to be
re c e ived from , each one o f h i s c urr en t ly induc ing organ i za t ions .
Neve r th e le s s , we c an argu e abou t an imp l ied d i f f ere nc e b e twee n th e
Barnard- S imon par t ic ipa t ion mode l and our s even a t a pe r fec t l y inope ra t iona l ,
me ta- theore t ica l l eve l o f exp lana t ion : Le t u s for c ompar i s on purpos e s
extra po la t e th e Barnard- S imon a s sump t ion O f Sc a lar U t i l i ty by impu t ing to
the ir the or e t ic a l Dms th e ab i l i ty to ord er indu ce me nts/contr ibu tions in
mu l t id imens iona l s pac e . The on l y Ut i l i t y ax iom we wou ld ne ed to pr e se rve in
ord er to c omp l e te our argumen t i s a ge ne ra l ly invoke d o ne , no t r e l inqu ish e d by any
sca lar Ut i l i ty the ory , t ha t Dm ' s To ta l- U t i l i t y o f a g iven a l t erna t ive inc rea s e s
w i th any increa s e in h i s Ut i l i ty ra t ing, or
"add i t iona l amoun t r e c e ived ,
" in
any o f Dm ' s goa l - a t tr ibu t e d imen s ion s .
i s go ing to sw ing Dm ' s De c i s ion to Par t ic ipa t e in i£§ d ire c t ion . Th i s
ba s is for cho ic e among organ i za t ions in our c ompe t i t ive wor ld o f c lo s e
e conomic rac e s - wh er e pr ic e s pa id for produc t s or per sons by a l l su rv iving tumn
panie s'
in any indu s try t end to ad ju s t so a s to e qua l i z e each c ompany ' s
re la t ive "c ompe t i t ivene s s " , i . e . e qua l iz e th e irf"tbtal package s
" ‘
of of fer ed
job Induc ement Ut i l i t ie s wou ld le ad u s to pr ed ic t th e ex is t enc e o f
a h igh ly vo la t ive game O f mus ic a l c ha ir s in the indu s tr ia l emp l oymen t
marke t .
Our th eory , in con tra s t,be c au s e i t a s sume s tha t on l y a Dm ' s
Pr imary goa l-a t tr ibu te s exer t ac t ive s e l ec t ion powe r wh en Dm make s h i s
c ho ic e , can t o le ra t e qu i te s ign i f ican t f luc tua t ions in th e re la t ive
po s i t ions o f Dm ' s or gan iza t ion a l t erna t ive s w i th re s pe c t to Se condary
and Aux il l iary goa l a t tr ibu t e s i . e . w i th r e s pe c t to the ma j or i ty o f
Dm ' s avowed goa l d ime ns ions, W l thou t th e re for e pre d ic t ing tha t Dm w i l l
a t onc e rearrange h i s "overa l l pre fe re nc e " rank ord e r ing, and thu s j ump
to th e gre e ner s ide o f th e f enc e .
I t i s ins truc t ive to cont emp l a t e tha t a B inary -Ut i l i ty”Inducement s
As p ira t i on - l eve l " mode l , i f u t i l i z e d in p la c e o f the Barnard - S imon Inducement s
Contr ibu t i on s Ba l anc e S cheme , wou ld a l so pr e d i c t mor e s tab l e ( s t e p -w i se )
De c i s ion to Sw i t c h be hav ior iknr Dms w ho wer e con t inua l l y be ing fa ce d wi th
c l o s e l y compe t i t ive o f fer s fr om d i f fer ent or gan i za t i ons .
Bu t our r evi s ed mod e l y ie ld s ye t ano ther r ea son for exp e c t ing
Organ i za t i ona l Par t i c ipa t i on de c i s i ons to b e ra t her s t ab l e cho i c e s . The
ra t i ona l i z ing d e c i s i on ru l e s tha t Dms cons truc t dur ing Con f irma t i on in
order t o exp la in t he ir cho i c e s ra t iona l e s wh ich mo s t l ike l y b e come even
more s tr eng thene d , e l abora t e , and exp l i c i t a s t ime pa s s e s wi th the ir
ac tua l par t i c ipa t ion in the organ i za t i on , so l ong a s Dms ' Pr imar y goa l s are
no t thereby gro s s ly vio l a t ed w i l l u sua l ly bias theirpme d ispos itions
tow ard s,or loya l ty " tO
,the incumb en t or gan i za t ion : Dm ' s ra t i ona l i z ing
r u l e wi l l now r e j e c t a l l t ho s e a l t e rna t ive s tha t h i s mor e d ir e c t app l i ca t ion
o f goa l -a t tr ib ut e Scre en ing me thod s wou ld r e j e c t , and f a s t er . And the ru l e
may in add i t i on b e come su f f i c ien t l y b ia s e d t o re j e c t even su ch organ i za
tiona l a l t erna t ive s as Dm wou l d have c ons ider e d to . be'be tte r
" t han h i s
curr ent one , had the y on ly b e en pr e sen te d for h i s cons idera t ion ear l ier
in the game .
F ina l l y , a d e c i s i on var iab l e wh i ch i s not ment ione d by S imon-Barnard
par t i c ipa t ion t heory , bu t wh ich Obviou s ly coul d and shou ld b e inc l uded in
any such theory , i s Dm ' s "f ixe d co s t o f moving .
" We may expe c t tha t the
l onger a Dm ha s b een w i th an organ i za t i on the mor e f ixed co s t s he w i l l
have bu i l t int o h i s cont inued re l a t i on sh ip w i t h i t . Cons id er i t ems such a s
bo s s -p e er r e l a t i onsh ip s , per sona l hous ing inve s tment s , ch i ldren ' s s choo l ing ,
ou- the - j ob sk i l l s and organ i za t i ona l l y id io syncra t i c knowl edge , per sona l
f i end s , pens ion b ene f i t s , e t c . , a l l o f wh i ch are examp l e s o f po t ent ia l l y
non- trans ferab l e as s e ts, that wou ld depr e c ia t e drama t i ca l l y shou l d Dm de c id e
to move , and t ha t mu s t ther e for e b e "over -co ns ate d"for by a cha l l e ng ing
a l t erna t ive i f Dm i s t o b e induc ed t o swi t ch organ i za t i ons .
Our sma l l contr ibu t i on to c l ar i f i ca t i on o f th e or gan i za t i ona l
ver su s per sona l goa l que s t i on f l ows fa ir l y na tura l ly from the r evi s e d
cho ic e mode l . The hypo th e s i s runs a s fo l low s :
and exp l ic i t goa l re qu ir ement s sur e ly wi l l , ip _most ca ses ,_spe cify thg
boundary l imi t s o f ro l e ingumbe ntsfl
mbehay ior in -organizatiqp_ . Bu t the
na tur e of par t i c ipant s ' organ i za t iona l d e c i s ion -a l t e rna t ive Genera t ion
and Eva lua t ion pro c e s s e s ar e such , ac cord ing to the GDP - l mode l , t ha t mor e than
a s ing l e or gan i za t iona l l y viab l e , or Accep tab l e , a l t erna t ive w i l l in many
(mo s t") ca s e s b e uncovered b y ro l e incumb ent s , thu s a l lowing_ ind ividua l sN“ a s . m a m ;
o f t en qu i t e brogd _p pp or tunityg fl d is cre tion, _Ota pgg e r d pg bripg _to ,be ar the ir
p er sona l goal s or ,bias e s- whenr making. what s ar e . app rOpriate ly r e cogni z ed a s
"organ i za t i ona l " d e c i s ion s . Th i s power we obviou s l y expe c t ed wi l l b e come
mor e pronounc ed the "h igher up we ob s erve th e ind ivid ua l s ' ro l e s in
the organ i za t iona l h ierar chy and/or the h i gher ar e t he de gr e e o f a ro l e
po s i t i on ' s t e chn i ca l Spe c ia l i zati on r e qu ir ement s r e la t ive t o the contro l
( 3 1 )comp e t ence s o f i t s sup ervi sory ro l e se t
The argument j u s t expound ed , r e the pr e dicte d . fr e quency o f ob serving a
coming l ing o f organ i za t i ona l and per sona l goa l s in or gan i za t i ona l de c i s i on
making , obviou s l y ha s imp l i ca t i on s for , i s inde ed par t l y id ent i ca l wi th , any
ana l ys i s o f ind ividua l member s ' in f l uenc e po s s ib i l i t i e s in organ i za t i ons . Ye t
i t i s no t th i s par t o f the theory tha t in t er e s t s u s mor e a t the moment .
Cons id er in s t e ad tho se po in t s or pha s e s in any organ i za t i ona l d e c i s i on pr oc e s s
a t wh i ch an ind ividua l who mi ght O t herwi s e have ra ther we ak "au thor i t y "
t o impo s e goa l pr emi se s , and in add i t i on no t much r o l e -incumb enc y Oppor tun i ty
to he l p pro ce s s and s e l e c t among the viab l e S e t o f organ i za t iona l l y Ac cep tab l e
a l t erna t ive s cou l d s t i l l exerc i s e qu i t e cons iderab l e , i f u sua l l y unrewarde d ,
power s o f i n f l ue nce over th e organ i za t ion ' s a l l o ca t i on o f re sourc e s and
cour s es o f ac t i on (apar t from the spe c ia l ca s e of forma l l y unre cogn i z ed ,
so ca l l ed gray e mine nce s,who migh t have the ear o f power f igur e s
"in the c loak
Br i e f ly , we wou ld expe c t tha t innova t ive ind ividua l s wou ld b e ab l e
to br ing t o b ear on t he ir or gan i za t i on s ra t her impr e s s ive power s o f inf luenc e .
i n th e ear l y pha s e s o f d e c i s ion mak ing , say by drawing t o the a t t ent ion o f a
"proper author i ty " t he ex i s t ence o f pr evi ous l y unr eorgan i zed de c i s i on prob
l ems , or in he lp ing r e c la s s i fy , d iagno se , and d e f ine for fur t he r pro c e s s ing
by o ther s in the ir organ i za t i on s such prob l ems a s had t i l l t hen be en l e f t
una t t ende d t o , o f t en , we migh t expec t , for lack o f su f f i c i e nt ly Opera t i ona l
or e f fi c ient s tra t e g i e s for C Op ing wi th them .
44
Th i s t yp e o f innova t ion by de c i s ion-making a t t ent i on- fo cus s ing wou ld
appear t o b e an e f fe c t ive in f luence s t ra t egy for int erna l and ex t erna l s t a f f
consu l tant s to make mor e de l i bera t e u s e o f , i n c on tra s t perhap s to th e int en s e
"d ir e c t sa l e s " e f for t s tha t consu l t ant s so O f t en S e em t o expend in ra ther
fut i l e a t t emp t s t o convinc e the ir c l i ent organ i za t ions t o adop t t he ir Own'
ful ly
deve l ope d so lut ions t o prob l ems tha t ar e on ly par t ly d e f ined , i f ye t even r e cog
nize d , by the O f f i c i a l s b e ing advi sed .
D . Organi za t i ona l innova t ion imp l ement a t i on
Here is t he la s t or gan i za t iona l imp l i ca t i on o f our th eory o f ind ivi
du la d e c i s i on mak ing t o b e con s id er ed in th i s pap er . Th i s hypo the s i s r e la t e s
qui t e c lo s e l y t o the thr e e ab ove , and i s int ere s t ing in i t s own r i ght on ly b e caus e
i t s e ems to he lp c lar i fy s ome o f th e preva i l ing myth s about why "p er fe c t l y
r ea sonab l e " or gan i za t i ona l d e c i s i ons , or innova t ions , fa i l t o ge t c arr i ed
ou t a t the imp l ement a t ion s tage
The the ore t i ca l c oncep t u sua l ly invoke d in ord er t o exp lai n de c i s i on
imp l ementa t ion fa i l ure is t he s a l l e d”re s i s t anc e to change " no t ion . The
la t t er i s u sua l l y d i s cu s s ed a s i f i t wer e some sor t o f genera l i z ed tra i t o f
human nat ur e , and then in lar ge mea sur e "irra t i ona l ly or a f fe c t ive l y ba sed,
whi ch may be“
ove rcome“
through d eve lopment o f inte rp e r s onal'tru s t
" b e twe en
l lchange agent and change e , t hrough some sor t o f par t i c ipa t ive d e c i s i on
shar ing .
46
tru s t " ne ed her eb y b e imput ed to th e r e la t ionsh ip s among organ i za t ion member s
in orde r t o exp la in how wider par t i c ipa t ion in organ i za t i ona l d e c i s i on making
be an e f fe c t ive s t ra t e gy for imp l ementa t i on . No t e , however , the hypothe
s is do e s no t ru l e out our concomi t an t b e l i e f in propo s i t ion s l ike
a . organ i za t ion member s ' int erper sona l fe e l ing s wi l l a f fe c t wha t and
how de c i s i on informa t ion i s , re spe c t ive l y , communi ca t ed and int erpr e t ed
b e twe en par t i c ipant s dur ing j o int prob l em s o lv ing ; and
b . int er per sona l t ru s t in t he s ens e o f th e ex i s t enc e o f un se c ur ed
mu tua l expe c ta t i ons b e twe e n ind ividua l s a t d i f fere nt l eve l s , or from
d i f ferent s ub -group s in an organ i za t i on , abou t t he o th er s ' per sp i cac i t y
and fa ir -mindedne s s in r egard to one ' s "own
" ro l e - prob lems and goa l
expe c ta t ion s may under c er ta in c ond i t ion s e f fe c t ive ly take the
p la ce o f exp l i c i t mu tua l guarrante e s in a s sur ing a change par t i c ipan t
tha t h i s ro l e c on s t ra int s and un-vo ice d per sona l ob j e c t ive s wi l l not
unw i t t ing l y be over - s t epped by Some o ther man or sub -group dur ing
imp l ementa t ion of the j o in t , innova t ing de c i s i on .
DIRECTIONS OF FUTURE RESEARCH
We wi l l now no mor e than t ouch ba s e wi th f ive not Spe c i f i ca l l y
organ i za t iona l ar ea s o f r e s earch tha t in the wr i t er ' s Op in ion de s erve h i s
and o ther s ' fur th er inve s t i ga t i on
A . Mea sur ement o f goa l s t ruc t ure
The s epara t i on o f Dms ' de c i s i on Va lue s into Pr imary and S e condary
goa l -a t tr ib ut e s e t s i s , a l though a key conc ep t in th e GDP -I mode l , a c la s s i
fication for wh i ch r e l i ab l e and rea sonab l y e f f i c i en t ex ant e ob serva t i ona l
instrume nts'
have ye t. to b e devi s ed . To da t e our own cod ing o f Dms ' goa l
a t tr ibu t e s truc t ur e s ha s b e e n a c comp l i she d large ly ex po s t ho c , from de ta i l e d
int ervi ew de c i s i on pro t o co l s . Much mor e de s i rab l e in t h i s r egard wou ld
obviou s ly be a va l ida t ed framework for gener a t ing s tandard que s t i onna ir e s ,
wh i ch cou ld b e adap t ed to a wider var i e t y o f prob l em cont ex t s for ide nt i fy ing
Dms' Pr imary v s . Se condary goa l a t tr ib u t e s b e for e Imp l i c i t Cho i ce take s
p lac e , i f ind e ed t he l a t t er Va l ue c la s s i f ica t i on can b e shown to ho ld up
und er fur th er s cru t i ny .
One o f th e mor e unu s ua l pr op er t i e s o f the GDP - I mode l i s p erhap s i t s
imp l i ca t i on tha t i t i s r edundant and po t ent ia l l y mi s l ead ing for u s t o r e pre
s e nt mo s t Dms ' r e spon s e s t o d e c i s i on uncer ta int y a s i f Dms e s t ima t ed , and
sub se quent ly per formed ar i thme t i c Opera t ions w i th , s e t s o f quant i t a t ive
Uncer ta inty ind i c e s,
wh i ch in t urn mod i fy the s ca lar Va lue s that Dms
a l l eged ly a s s i gn to per c e ived con se que nc e s o f t he ir Unc er ta in a l t ernat ive s
a s ha s u sua l ly b e en a s sumed by the tr ad i t iona l l y emp loyed
Per sona l Probab i l i ty or Po t ent ia l Surpr i se mea sur e s : Our ins i s t ence on
trying t o carry over t he ana l yt i ca l e l e ganc e s o f Probab i l i t y theory int o
emp i r i ca l de s cr ip t i on s of cho i c e behavior is l ike l y t o l ead u s to a sk que s
t i on s o f a Dm ' s Fe l t De c i s ion Uncer ta in ty t o wh i ch the la t t er may we l l b e
tra ined to provide semant i ca l ly meaning fu l answer s , bu t wh i ch (pr ed i c t s the
GDP - I mode l ) wi l l t urn ou t t o b e of l i t t l e or no he lp to u s in p ie c ing t oge ther
a po s i t ive the ory o f how Dms r e spond pragmat i ca l l y t o per ce ived Unc er ta int y
in de c i s i on making .
I t i s impor tant for u s to examine , there for e , t he ext en t t o wh ich
Unc er t a int y repre sen t e d in t erms o f no more than Like l y or"probab le ” range s
o f Va lue ratings,along th e Unc er ta in goa l a t tr ibu t e s o f (a l l e ged l y Unc er t a in )
al te rnative s,w il l b e bo th a de s cr ip t ive ly ac cura t e a s we l l a s computa t iona l l y
Su f f i c i en t manner o f r epre s ent ing Unce r ta inty, in a numb er o f wide ly d i f feren t
d e c i s i on s i t ua t i on s .
By the same token , it w ou ld be d e s irabl e to Ob s erve in mor e sy s t ema t i c
d e t a i l how Dms in d i f feren t cho i c e cont ex t s Opera t e w i t h Uncer tai nt y Va lue
range s (i f the y do ) . when re so lving Ind i f fere nc e con f l i c t s ar i s ing from the ir
i n i t ia l inab i l i t y t o rank- order g iven de c i s ion a l t erna t ive s in xnu l tid ime ns iona l spa c e .
One obvio u s Uncer ta in ty -e s t ima te hypo t he si s woul d for exampl e be tha t
ea ch alte rnative7whe n i ni t i a l l y encount er e d b y Dm
,s tar ts ou t having a wi de
r ange o f Like l y Va l ue -ra t ing s , i . e .
"mu ch Unc er ta int y " , a s so c ia t e d w i th mo s t
a l l o f i t s goa l - a t tr ibu t e s : By Dm ' s suc ce s s ive r ound s o f Sear ch - inve s t i ga
t i on o f the a l t erna t ive t he s e goa l -a t tr ibu t e range s are then gradua l l y
r educ ed , perhap s t o un ique Va l ue po ints . e ve ntual ly .
5 0
De c i s i on cont ex t s tha t f i t t h i s b i l l ra ther we l l abound in the f i e ld
O f i ndu s tr ia l management : Con s i der suc h obviou s ly GS - type prob l ems as : c omp any
merger d e c i s i ons , key manager ia l p er sonne l se l e c t i ons , p lant l o ca t ion , new
produc t inve s tment commi tmen t s , ma j or e qu ipmen t purcha s ing , or,more genera l l y,
any cap i t a l inve s tmen t d e c i s i on for whi ch no s ing l e pa y-O ff d imens i on i s
c lear l y ac cep t ed a s b e ing th e me a sur e by wh i ch ch o ic e a l t erna t ive s are to
b e rank ord ere d .
Having mad e the s ta t emen t tha t Genera t e -and -S cr e en t ype cont ext s
ough t t o b e d i f fer ent ia t ed from De s ign-Te s t -and -Mod i fy de c i s i on s i tua t i on s
i t b ehoove s u s t o exp la in in mor e de ta i l , obvio u s ly , j u s t how our GDP -I
mode l i s to b e mod i f i ed in order 3 1 5 0 to b e ab l e to ac count for t he la t t er
type o f cho i c e phenomena . A l though i t i s th e aut hor ' s b e l i e f tha t mo s t o f
the ba s ic s truc t ur e o f the GDP -I mod e l can b e carr i ed over into our ana l y s e s
o f more typ i ca l l y DTM prob l em so lving , t h e l a t t er t ype o f s i tua t ion ye t rema in s
t o b e sub j e c t e d t o th e d e gre e o f d e ta i l ed ou - l ine ob s erva t ion s o f its de c i s ion
pro c e s se s tha t wa s t he ma in p lank o f inve s t i ga t i on in our o c cupa t i ona l cho i ce
s tud i e s
Ar ea s l ike t e chno lo g i ca l sy s t ems ( componen t ) r e s ear ch and d eve lopment ,
marke t ing s tra t egy d e s ign , company sub - d ivi s ion r eor gan i za t i on de c i s i on s ,
depar tmenta l educa t i ona l po l i cy evo lu t i on , or l e g i s l a t ive propo sa l cons tr uo
t i on par t i cu lar ly i f in s tance s o f such d e c i s ion proc e s se s can b e found t hat ar e
mad e , or l ea s t c l o s e ly mon i tor ed , by s ing l e ke y ind ividua l s ar e ind ee d
32ah igh l y t emp t ing ar ea s for fu tur e DTM-t ype mod e l generaliza t i on e f forts .
(
i i i . t ype and de gr e e of fo rma l i ty o f the group s ' ru l e s of proc edure ,
and/or mod e or channe l s of in t erp er sona l c ommuni ca t ion s ;
iv . r e cent pa s t h i s t ory o f int erper sona l re la t ions among memb er s o f
th e group ;
v . pre s en t group c l ima t e variab l e s l ike cohe s ivene s s " ,
"Openne s s ,
"s truc tura l int e gra t ion " ,
"commi tmen t t o ta sk " , e t c .
( 35 )
We have hard ly ye t b e gun , i t se ems , to c o l l e c t ade qua t e pro c e s s da ta
on the ba s i s of wh ich to fo rmu la t e rea sonab l y ade qua t e mode l s for exp la in ing
the d i f feren t ia l e f fe c t s on group d e c i s i on -be havior of t he above var iab l e s
l e t a l one O f o the r s tha t we ye t know no t enough abou t even to concep tua l i z e .
The Oppor t un i t y to j o in in on do ing th i s t yp e o f re s ear ch shou l d thu s
b e ra the r obviou s .
J . S . Ch ipman ,
"The fo unda t ions o f ut i l i t y " , E conome tr i ca , 28 , 1 9 60,
pp . 19 3-224 .
Cons ider for examp l e the s truc t ure o f sub -goa l s produc ed b y A . Newe l l ,
J .G . Shaw , and H .A . S imon ' s Genera l Prob l em So lver mode l in th i s l igh t
(P sycho l . Rev . , 92, 1 9 5 8 , pp . 1 5 1
H .A . S imon , On th e conce p t Of organ i za t i ona l goa l " , Adm . . Sci . guatr . ,
9 , 19 64 , pp . 1 -22 .
S e e J .G . March and H .A . S imon ' s mode l o f adap t ive mo t iva t ed behav ior
in Organ i za t i ons , New York : Wi l e y , 1 9 58 , pp . 4 7 -50 .
P . Soe lbe rg ,
"A genera l i zab le de c i s i on pro c e s s mode l , GDP -I" , S l oan
Schoo l o f Management , Ma s sa chu s e t t s Ins t i tu t e o f Te chno logy , 19 66 , p .4 7 .
Longi tud ina l que s t i onna ir e pro c e s s Op . c i t .
"A cr i t i ca l revi ew o f the or ie s o f prob l em so lving and
d e c i s i on b ehavior , Par t A " , S l oan S choo l o f Management , Ma s sachu se t t s
Ins t i t u t e o f Te chno lo gy , 1 9 6 6 .
e . g . R . J . B j e l l and ,
"Probab i l i ty e s t ima t ion under cond i t i on s o f vary ing
unc er ta inty " , Ma s t er s t he s i s , S l oan S choo l o f Managme nt , Ma s sa chu s e t t s
Ins t i tu t e o f Te chno logy , 19 6 5 .
e . g . R .M . Thra l l , C . H . Coomb s , R .L . Davi s , ( e d s ) , De c i s i on Pro c e s s e s ,
1 9 5 9 ; W . Edward s , Op . c i t ;
5 6
Ma s s : Harvard , 1 9 39 . Re c en t l y , however , trad i t iona l ly tra ined psycho lo
g i s t s have increa s ing l y be gun ca l l ing for be t t er int e gra t ion o f the mi cro
co smi c view o f ind iv idua l/pr imary- group . be havior wi th a lar ger sys t ems
v iew o f organ i za t i ona l pro c e s s and s t ruc tur e . Se e for examp l e E . H . S che in ,
Organ i za t iona l p sycho l ogy , Eng l ewood C l i f f s ,N. J . : Prent i c e Ha l l , 1 9 6 5 ;
or D . Ka t z and R .L . Kahn , The so c ia l psycho l ogy o f organ i za t ion s , New York
Wi l e y , 1 9 6 6 .
For further deve l opment o f the hypo the s i s s e e Soe lbe r g ,
"S truc t ur e o f
ind iv idua l goa l s : Imp l ica t ion s for or gan i za t ion theory op . c i t .
A l though we may have l earned to ac c e p t w i th a gra in o f sa l t t he ear l y d iag
no s e s a s o f fere d by L . Coch and J .R . P . Fr ench ("Over coming re s i s tanc e
t o change ,
" Hum . Re la t . , 1 , 1 9 48 , pp . 5 12 A . Zander ("Re s i s tanc e
t o change , i t s ana ly s i s and pr event ion ”
(repr int ed in W . G . Benn i s ,
K . D . Be nne , and R . Ch in ( e d s ) , The plann ing o f change , New York : Ho l t ,
1 9 6 1 , pp . 5 43 e t a l , o f view ing change e— par t i c ipa t ion i n de c i s ion
making a s bo th a ne c e s sar y and su f f i c ie nt cond i t ion for"over coming r e s is
tan ce t o change ,
"
par t ic ular l y perhap s in view o f t he e qu ivo ca l da ta on
0
t hat s cor e r e por t ed b y French , I srae l , and As ("An exper iment in par t i c i
it s e ems tha t the ra the r exp l i c i t , cogni t ive , and usua l l y easi l y
ob s ervab l e ob j e c t ions t ha t change e s o f t en do vo i c e aga ins t "chang ing “ have got
t en s ever e l y und e r p laye d,by change t heor i s t s fo cus s ing l ar ge l y on"p sycho
l og i ca l " , more or 1 6 8 8 af fe ctive avar iab l e s as t he ch ie f means o f exp l a in
ing "r e s i s tanc e " phenomena . "One w ond e r s , for examp l e , i f from organ i za t iona l l y
non-par t ic ipa t ing worker s ' po int o f view one o f t he ir ma in r e aSons for
"r e s i s t ing " is no t o f t en t he ir fr e quen t l y we l l - founded,and qu i t e exp l i c i tl y
b e l ie f tha t i f the y wen t a l ong wi th the change t he y wer e
l ike ly to ge t“s cr e w e d
"on one or mor e o f t he goa l -a t tr ibu t e s tha t they con
s id e re d to b e impor tan t on t he ir job e i ther wi thout su f f ic i ent
r e compens e or wi thout f l ex ib i l i t y to ad j u s t for unfor e s e en l o s se s from
the change ,a fte r i t had be en Suc c e s s fu l l y imp l ement ed . ]
W .D . Pu t t ha s r e c e n t l y pr o po s e d ext end ing the mod e l to de s cr i pt i ons o f the
d e c is ion- to -bid d e s i gn pr oc e s s Of te chnica l compani e s compe t ing for govern
ment R- and -D contrac ts .
