Compare And Contrast The Rational Model Of Decision Making

Compare and contrast the rational model of decision making, Simon’s normative model, and the garbage can model

The process of decision making is fundamental to managerial effectiveness and organizational success. Various models have been developed to understand and guide decision-making practices, each emphasizing different aspects of the process. Among these, the rational model, Simon’s normative model, and the garbage can model stand out as influential frameworks that offer contrasting perspectives on how decisions are made within organizations.

The rational model of decision making assumes that decision-makers are fully rational actors who seek to maximize their benefits by systematically evaluating all available information. This model posits a logical, step-by-step process: identifying the problem, generating alternative solutions, evaluating these alternatives, and selecting the optimal solution. The rational model presumes that decision-makers have access to complete information and can analyze all options objectively. It emphasizes consistency, logic, and a scientific approach to decision making, aiming for the most efficient and effective outcome. This model is often idealized, serving as a benchmark against which actual decision-making processes are measured.

In contrast, Simon’s normative model introduces the concept of bounded rationality, acknowledging that decision-makers face cognitive limitations and environmental constraints that prevent perfectly rational decisions. Simon argued that individuals satisfice rather than optimize—meaning they select solutions that are ‘good enough’ under given circumstances, rather than the absolute best. The normative model emphasizes that decision makers operate under uncertainty, often with incomplete information and time pressures, leading them to simplify complex problems through heuristics and satisficing. This model aligns more closely with real-world decision processes, recognizing human cognitive limitations and the influence of organizational and environmental factors.

The garbage can model takes a different approach by portraying organizational decision making as a chaotic, unpredictable process. It posits that decisions result from the simultaneous flow of problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities—a “garbage can” of assorted elements that interact randomly. Decisions are not the result of rational analysis but are instead the outcome of a complex, often haphazard interplay of events. This model is particularly applicable in organizations characterized by ambiguity, uncertain environments, and frequent changes, where decision processes are less structured. It highlights how political motives, timing, and chance heavily influence decisions, deviating from traditional rational and bounded rationality models.

While the rational model offers clarity and a structured approach, it often oversimplifies the complexities of decision making in practice. Conversely, Simon’s normative model provides a more realistic depiction by incorporating cognitive limitations, but it can overlook the role of organizational politics and external influences. The garbage can model emphasizes the randomness and ambiguity inherent in organizational decisions, especially in high-uncertainty contexts, but it may understate the importance of rational analysis and structured processes.

Understanding the differences among these models helps managers recognize the context and limitations of their decision-making processes. The rational model is most applicable in stable environments with well-defined problems where optimal solutions are feasible. Simon’s normative model is better suited for situations with limited information and bounded rationality, typical in real organizations. The garbage can model describes decision making in highly ambiguous scenarios, often seen in innovative or crisis situations where decisions are driven by chance rather than structured analysis.

References

• Simon, H. A. (1977). The New Science of Management Decision. Prentice-Hall.
• March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Universitetsforlaget.
• Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
• Daft, R. L. (2010). Organization Theory and Design (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Allison, G. T. (1971). The essence of decision: explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Science, 174(3990), 1043-1050.
• Mintzberg, H. (1976). Planning on the left side and managing on the right. Harvard Business Review, 54(4), 49-58.
• Nutt, P. C. (1999). Surprising but true: Half the decisions in organizations fail. Academy of Management Executive, 13(4), 75-90.
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
• Lindberg, B. (2000). Decision-making in organizations: The crisis of rationality. European Journal of Operational Research, 124(2), 365-373.
• Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(Special Issue), 187-206.