organizations & decision-making: thematic literature review
TRANSCRIPT
Running head: ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 1
Organizations and Decision-Making
Thematic Literature Review
Charmaine Barton
Athabasca University
ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 2
Organizations and Decision Making
Thematic Literature Review
As a student of “governance,” I have always been interested in why some researchers
believe that private organizations (businesses) are better run than governments or their ministries
or departments. Are private companies’ better organizations? Using texts on “organization,” and
one text on indigenous people, I have completed a literature review and come across four
themes:
Organizations are complex (p. 3);
Decision-making is an “it depends” activity influenced by three factors (p. 4):
o The range of perspectives available for use by a decision-maker (p. 6);
o The personal experiences of the decision-maker (p. 8); and,
o The situation itself (p. 9).
There needs to be a balance in decision-making (p. 11);
Because there is “no one true way” to organize or make a decision (p. 13).
Therefore, private organizations face many of the same challenges as governmental
organizations1 where the structure is complex and all decisions “depend” upon the politics of the
government-of-the-day, the values and ethics (perspectives) of the decision-makers, and the
situations under consideration. Governmental decisions attempt to balance the monetary cost
with the intangible benefit of “public good.” As will be seen, there is no real difference, or one
true way to organize, when comparing private and public organizations.
1 This paper will not be making any explicit references to “governance” literature that was accessed during GOVN500, GOVN505, GOVN540, or MAIS612. My study of governance literature has led to this self-designed reading course on “organization” to see if there is or is not a substantive difference between public and private organizations. Only “organization” literature will be cited.
ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 3
Organizations are Complex
Many people look at organizations, such as their government and Sears, and do not believe
that such institutions have anything in common except the “desire” to relieve you of your money
through taxes or through over-priced items to make corporate profit. However, this is not a valid
observation, because many people do not understand the concept of “organization,” as an
institution.
It must be understood that what is observed may not be true (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 42) because
the basic idea of organization is premised on making the complex simple enough to understand
and research (Morgan, 2006, p. 220). Organizations are socially constructed realities (May &
Mumby, 2005, p. 180; Morgan, 2006, p. 116); they are a process of human imagination (Morgan,
2006, p. 365) that cannot be taken as a “given” fact of life (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 199)
because organizations are created to achieve a goal (Daft, 2013, p 14) which must be
“accomplished” (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 199). Institutions are “vague, ambiguous, and
amorphous” (Daft, 2013, p. 12), which exist to serve human needs (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.
117), are gendered (Buzzanell, 2000), and mean different things to different people (May &
Mumby, 2005, p. 187).
Organizations are a single element in a complex system (Morgan, 2006, p. 62) where the
intricate relationship between organization and humans (Morgan, 2006, p. 34) is further
complicated by power and influence (Pfeffer, 1992), communication (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p
24), discourse (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 7), and the self-identification of the organization and its
human members (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 59). Thus, researching and understanding is difficult
ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 4
when organizations are deemed “complex, surprising, deceptive, and ambiguous” (Bolman &
Deal, 2013, p 39). As Morgan (2006) says “organizations are many things at once” (p. 337)!
Regarding organizational decision-making, all of the literature authors agree that
organizations are not neutral and rational actors in decision-making because rationality is
politically motivated (Pfeffer, 1992) by the self-interest of the humans making the decisions
(Morgan, 2006, p. 203). Thus, some people believe that all decisions should be left to machines
and computers (Morgan, 2006, p. 27). However, this is not an option in a globalized world where
the boundaries between industries, sectors, cultures, and public/private life are blurring (Daft,
2013, p. 14) and becoming more complex.
Decision-making is an “it depends” activity
Remembering that rationality is political (Pfeffer, 1992) and interest based (Morgan, 2006,
p. 203), “what is rational from one organizational standpoint may be catastrophic from another”
(Morgan, 2006, p. 330). Thus, decision-making can make or break an organization. However,
decision-making is not an easy activity.
The most common means of organizational decision-making is the “meeting agenda.”
Agendas show the sequence in which decisions will be made (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 210;
Pfeffer, 1992, 240). One normally assumes that the most urgent or important decisions would be
listed first; however, agendas can be politically motivated, depending upon who finalizes the
order (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 15).
One cannot observe an organization or its decision-making model from a safe, neutral, and
external position (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 239; May & Mumby, 2005, p. 28; Morgan, 2006, p. 245).
As well, organizational decisions are not made in “splendid solitude” (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 207)
ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 5
cocooned from external influences or environments (Morgan, 2006, p. 217). Further, what is
observed is more like a “snapshot” (Morgan, 2006, p. 146) that can be “framed” in many ways
(Bolman & Deal, 2013).
Effective organizations depend upon having a wide range of choices and options (Morgan,
2006, p. 250) conditional upon the goal of the decision. But organizations are subjected to the
same “fads and fashions” as society at large is (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 39; Daft, 2013, p. 204).
One of the most insidious “fads,” in 2016, that affects organizations and their decision-making
models is that of “immediate gratification.” Society believes that there can be, and should be,
instantaneous decision-making on any and all issues (Morgan, 2006, p. 312) due to the ease of
access to knowledge information via smartphones. Therefore, people believe that “fixing” the
educational system should be instantaneous; even though there is no consensus on how to fix it
(Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 235). Organizations who do not see immediate visible “returns” on
human capital investment therefore they do not invest the second time (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.
139). Thus, the inability to “get things done” (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 7) in a timely manner (Morgan,
2006, p. 28) is blamed on a specific decision-maker, the system, or a general thirst-for-power
(Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 25-31). Yet, it is normally not a lack of technology, consensus, or
knowledge-data that impedes decision-making; instead it is the lack of (political) will by
organizational decision-makers (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 4).
Organizations, large and small, are starting to recognize and understand that the lines are
blurring between industries, sectors, and public/private life (Daft, 2013, p. 14). Thus, a way must
be found to bring the different parties together (Morgan, 2006, p. 117), with focused attention
(Pfeffer, 1992, p. 30), so that timely decisions (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 227) can be made on issues
(Buzzanell, 2000, p. 138; Daft, 2013, p. 443; May & Mumby, 2005, p. 174; Morgan, 2006, p.
ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 6
255), for the “common good.” Organizations and societies are also starting to recognize that the
safe, neutral, splendid solitude (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 207) of the past is gone and that decision-
making is influenced by three factors: multiple theories, perspectives, images, and frames; the
past personal experiences of the decision-makers; and, that each situation is different. Thus, the
decision-making process can now best be described as an “it depends” activity.
Multiple theories and perspectives on decision-making
One of the first acts in the decision-making process is to try and make sense of what is
going on in a very complex situation. However, “it is not a single frame activity” (Bolman &
Deal, 2013, p. 303). There are multiple theories and perspectives in the selected literature that
can be used by decision-makers, which “adds up to a simple truth that is easy to overlook. The
world we perceive is, for the most part, constructed internally” (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 36).
There are no right or wrong theories or perspectives when assessing the situation
surrounding a decision. All theories and perspectives illuminate and hide aspects of the situation
(Morgan, 2006, p. 8). Some people use metaphors and images (Morgan, 2006); others use
“frames” to enclose the area of inquiry (Bolman & Deal, 2013); while others use a biological
life-cycle to design an organization (Daft, 2013); others love or hate to talk about power and
politics (Pfeffer, 1992); third wave feminists discuss who is not included in the “conversation”
(Buzzanell, 2000); and some researchers practice what they preach about organizational
communications (May & Mumby, 2005); and finally, indigenous peoples have their own views
of how things should get done (Niezen, 2003).These theories and perspectives seem
overwhelming, however, “there is simply not much competition between these different
perspectives [and theories]; they are useful for different purposes” (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 30).
ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 7
In “managing diversity” (Daft, 2013, p. 11) one can use the various perspectives achieve
this ill-defined goal. If “organizations [are] cultures, we can see almost every aspect in a new
way” (Morgan, 2006, p. 140). Various questions can be asked about the diversity goal. Does this
organization prize written stories over oral stories (Niezen, 2003, p. 97)? Does the manager
prefer to promote the “generalized other” (commonalities) or the “concrete other” (differences)
within the organization (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 33-34)? Is group membership based upon a choice
or is it based on birth (Niezen, 2003, p. 13)? When using different perspectives, one quickly
“realiz[es] that there lots of ways of being ‘other’” (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 87).
Using the political frame (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 183-242), what is deemed rational or
ridiculous is dependent on who explains the situation (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 190). One needs to know
how “the game [is] being played, the players, and what their positions are” (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 30).
Questions are needed to define “the game.” Are all players involved represented in the decision-
making process or are some being excluded (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 63)? Is the manager more
concerned with collective rights or with individual rights (Niezen, 2003, p. 18-20)? It must be
noted that many people would prefer to have “politics” removed from the workplace, however,
“this is unrealistic so long as politics is inseparable from social life” (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.
207-208).
With the understanding that many portions of life are inter-connected, an emerging trend
in organization theory is to use ‘hard’ science models to demonstrate the complexity of
institutions. For example, flux theory which “embod[ies] characteristics of both permanence and
change” (Morgan, 2006, p. 241) is assisting management in coping with constant need to adapt
to an ever changing external and internal environment. The persistent, feminist “glass-ceiling” is
now being explained using strange-attractor and order-out-of-chaos theories (Buzzanell, 2000, p.
ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 8
236-256). Daft’s (2013) book is structured on a life-cycle systems model used in biology. While
some people may believe that ‘hard’ science models should be applied to human organizations
there is danger in doing so. Humans can think about themselves and change while atoms and
molecules cannot (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 238-246).
There are many other theories and perspectives available for use. But one must remember
that all theories and perspectives are partial (Morgan, 2006, p. 4) and value-laden, not value-free
(May & Mumby, 2005, p. 90). Every metaphor, image, or frame has strengths and limitations
(Bolman & Deal, 2013; Morgan, 2006) and that favoured ways of seeing a situation also become
ways of not seeing (Morgan, 2006, p. 209). Morgan (2006) and Bolman & Deal (2013) suggest
using multiple images and frames to better understand what is going on in a given situation.
Finally, one needs to remember that “the world looks different depending upon one’s social
location” (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 178) which is partially created by one’s lived-experiences.
Personal experiences and decision-making
Mangers and leaders normally use general knowledge to define a decision-making
situation, but, they most often base their decision on their most recent personal experiences
(Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 307). In our globalized world, some managers and leaders are left
scratching their heads because the “correct” decision in the USA does not work in Saudi Arabia
(Daft, 2013, p. 217). They appear to have forgotten that there is no homogenous society or
culture (Morgan, 2006, p. 125).
We eat different food (Daft, 2013, p. 236), have a variety of personal experiences
(Niezen, 2003, p. 57), and have grown up listening to different stories (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 253-
254; Niezen, 2003, p. 97). Personal experiences, as young black girls in the USA, have shaped
ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 9
two academics and how they view and define their organizational decision-making (Buzzanell,
2000, p. 202; May & Mumby, 2005, p. 42). How one defines his/her identity has an impact on
one’s social location and on decision-making (Morgan, 2006, p. 260). Organizational
experiences impact one’s decision-making as well, because as one takes on new roles and moves
throughout the organization one has different experiences (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 176).
Many employees believe that decisions should be left to managers and leaders, who get
the big money, because they are smarter and more influential than the average worker (Pfeffer,
1992, p. 10). But they are only have influential because “leadership is conferred by followers”
(Pfeffer, 1992, p. 130; see also Buzzanell, 2000, p. 128-156). Managers and leaders, like
employees, “look to others for advice, information, and other resources” (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 101)
that are needed to get the job done. This advice and information influences the management
styles practiced around the world (Daft, 2013, p. 244; Morgan, 2006, p. 121-122), because each
society is different. Despite stereotypic conceptions of other cultures (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.
ix), most global managers know that if given the choice to influence your head or your heart,
they would pick your heart (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 279) because the personal is so powerful.
Situations and decision-making
One of the uses of multiple perspectives and theories in decision-making is to better
define the situation that the organization is facing because “people often have a myopic view of
what is occurring” (Morgan, 2006, p. 29). There is an “assumption that management theory and
practice are rational [but it] is not always realized” (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 133) because each
situation or event is different. Unexpected external environmental factors (Morgan, 2006, p. 39)
can have a huge impact on a company’s bottom line and or reputation. For example, in 2010 a
ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 10
volcano eruption in Iceland grounded air traffic in and around Europe posing a critical threat to
DHLs bottom line and reputation.2 However, unlike the police and fire department response to
the 9/11 attacks (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 44), DHL had a co-ordinated “what if” contingency
plan that allowed them to deal with the ban on air travel with minimal effect to their bottom line
or reputation.
One situational dependent that is often overlooked is whether or not the organization
should or should not be making this decision period (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 66). Should a
government decide that a certain percentage of every company’s profit must be spent on “social
responsibility” projects? Should a company decide not to pay all of its federal taxes because it
does not like the government withdrawing airplanes from the Syrian conflict? Whether or not an
organization should be making a decision can be seen in the unique challenges of any given
situation (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 58). As well, because power relationships are always shifting
(Daft, 2013, p. 192), who is influential and powerful in any given decision-making process is
dependent on the task (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 77). Further, some who were previously influential may
find themselves excluded (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 65) because their sphere of influence is not
needed for this task (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 68).
Decision-making is also based on knowledge created by specific standpoint (personal
experience and social location) (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 12). Depending upon the integration and
interpretation of this knowledge a situation can be viewed as an opportunity or a challenge
(Morgan, 2006, p. 140). Competitors may collaborate today on obtaining scarce, natural
resources, while tomorrow they try to underbid each other to gain a contract; “frenemies” must
often be more knowledgeable of situational dependencies (Daft, 2013, p. 185). 2 See www.dpdhl.com/en/media_relations/abonnements/financial_media_newsletter/background_q1_2010.html for more details
ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 11
Knowledge, and decision-making, can also be influenced by communication networks
shaped for a specific task (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 112). For example, a Sergeant carries out orders that
s/he has helped to shape through sharing his/her observations of the local culture, geography,
religion, and attitudes. The Sergeant passes this information up through the communication
network to the Commanding General, who passes down orders to the Sergeant (Daft, 2013, p.
106-107).
As situations change, a range of decision-making methods can be used (Bolman & Deal,
2013, p. 51), which in turn effects who has the power to be influential and effective (Pfeffer,
1992, p. 81). For example, indigenous peoples’ leaders agree that the United Nations is the best
place for the decision-making in recognizing their cultural and human rights (Niezen, 2003, p.
70). The Cree and Tuareg are more influential on “residential school systems,” while the Ainu
are more influential on rejecting “cultural assimilation” (Niezen, 2003).
Balance in Decision-Making
As can be seen from the above conversations, organizations are complex entities whose
decision-making process is best defined as an “it depends” activity that is influenced by multiple
perspectives, human experiences, and situational factors. As there is organizational uncertainty
(Daft, 2013, p. 203) and ambiguity (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 257) in every situation, how does any
decision get made? According to Daft (2013) all decisions are a balancing act (p. 79). Decisions
need to balance competing goals (Daft, 2013, p. 80), evolving priorities (Bolman & Deal, 2013,
p. 70), promote innovation while avoiding mistakes (Morgan, 2006, p. 263), within a “values and
ethics” framework (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 33). A decision-maker must balance what is rational with
what seems irrational (Morgan, 2006, p. 237) while searching for scarce resources (Bolman &
ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 12
Deal, 2013, p. 214) against the backdrop of uncertainty and ambiguity (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 208). In
other words, “we must act without knowing for sure” (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 103). However,
uncertainty and ambiguity can be mitigated if one blends and uses multiple perspectives and
frames (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 306) as one comes to realize that “pattern and order emerge
from the [decision-making] process; it is not imposed” (Morgan, 2006, p. 73) upon the process.
Despite some spectacular blunders in management decision-making (Bolman & Deal,
2013, p. 44 and 185-187; Daft, 2013, p. 74) many successful decisions are made every day (Daft,
2013, p. 477). If one believes that organizations are created to meet human needs and decisions
lay out the path to achieving that goal, then the greatest “sin” a decision-maker can commit is to
do nothing (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 300). In the forum of rights and responsibilities (Niezen, 2003, p.
110), such as downsizing and mass lay-offs, a decision-maker must balance the needs of the
organization with and against the needs of employees (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 135; Buzzanell,
2000, p. 52). In such cases, and others, decision-makers need to remain emotionally stable
(Niezen, 2003, p. 63) to cope with competing interests on a daily basis (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 340).
Not all organizations are soul-sucking vampires nor are all workers fakers and scammers
(Morgan, 2006, p. 310). Yes, some companies have decided that paying life insurance policies is
cheaper than implementing safety reforms (Morgan, 2006, p. 306-309). Yet, some large multi-
national corporations, political forces without political accountability (Morgan, 2006, p. 321), are
trying to work with the normally excluded and silent voices (Buzzanell, 2000) of indigenous
peoples to balance resource extraction with the peoples’ connection to the land. Many
organizations are trying to reframe their politics to include a greater sense of (social)
responsibility (Morgan, 2006, p. 332).
ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 13
No One True Way
In looking at the above themes, it is not surprising that all of the authors agree that there
is “no one true way” to organize and make decisions (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 60; Buzzanell,
2000, p. 24; Daft, 2013, p. 28; May & Mumby, 2005, p.8; Morgan, 2006, p. 5; Niezen, 2003, p.
122). Some researchers have become disenchanted with the search for and the promise of a
“grand unifying theory” (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 117). Researchers believe that organizations
must have some choice in their actions (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 89) otherwise there would be
nothing to select to better fit the situation (Morgan, 2006, p. 59). There is neither a McManager
(Morgan, 2006, p. 24) nor a McWorld (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 245).
As there is no perfect or ideal manager, there is no ideal organizational structure in real
life (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 60). Due to the turbulent times there is more differentiation
between organizations as more “species” evolve (Morgan, 2006, p. 51). Hard science is no
longer considered to lead to the “one true path” of knowledge production (May & Mumby, 2005,
p. 30). Despite the use of chaos-, complexity-, and self-organizing systems theory and their
emphasis on non-linear systems, like organizations (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 238), there is concern
about the reification of these models as they do not translate well to social systems involving
humans (Buzzanell, 2000p. 246).
As “organization ultimately resides in the heads of the people involved” (Morgan, 2006,
p. 145) “there is no universal design, no system of government [or organization] to which
humanity will or should conform” (Montesquieu quoted in Niezen, 2003, p. 122). How much
easier would it be if organization, as an institution, was a grand morality play, pre-scripted, and
the good guys and bad guys were easily told apart (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 343)? In the end, there can
ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 14
be no central dogma or cant (Niezen, 2003, p. 13); no traditional binary thinking (Buzzanell,
2000, p. 11). The greatest decision-maker of all time is the human brain where decisions are “the
result of a … chaotic process where multiple processes … are generated as a result of activity
distributed throughout the brain. There is no master, centralized intelligence” (Morgan, 2006, p.
145)!
Conclusion
Through a selective literature review four themes have emerged about organizations and
decision-making: organizations are complex; decision-making is an “it depends” activity based
on (a) multiple perspectives, (b) personal experiences, and (c) the situation; decision-making
must be balanced; and that in the end there is no one true way to organize and make decisions.
These themes appear to cross-cut civil society sectoral boundaries, language, and culture. No
organization (public, private, or voluntary) should be held up as a “true” model to slavishly
follow. All organizations have strengths and limitations. An organization should have the
opportunity to find “best practices” from whichever sector or industry it feels best represents the
needs and desires of its human members.
ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 15
References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley brand.
Buzzanell, P. M. (2000). Rethinking organizational & managerial communication from feminist
perspectives. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Daft, R. L. (2013). Organization theory & design (11th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western
Cengage Learning.
May, S., & Mumby, D. K. (2005). Engaging organizational communication theory & research:
Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization (Updated ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Niezen, R. (2003). The origins of indigenism: Human rights and the politics of identity.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston, Mass.:
Harvard Business School Press.