Transcript No Slide Title

Chapter 10
Decision Making
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Overview
1. Optimizing Model
2. Satisficing Model
3. Muddling Model
4. Mixed Scanning Model
5. Contingency Model
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
I The Classical Model:
Optimizing
Optimizing: Make the Best Decision
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Define the Problems
Establish Goals and Objectives
Generate all Possible Alternatives
Consider the Consequences of all Alternatives
Evaluate all Alternatives
Select the Best Alternative
Implement and Evaluate the Decision
Questions: Can you make the Best Decision? Why?
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Some Decision Making Assumptions
Assumption One: Administrative decision making is a dynamic
process that solves some organizational problems and creates
others.
•Always more problems
•No final solutions
Assumption Two: Complete rationality in decision making is
impossible;
Thus, administrators seek to satisfice rather than optimize. Why?
•Optimize--the Best Decision
•Satisfice-- “Good Enough”
•Bounded Rationality--Best of a narrow set of
alternatives.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Decision Making Assumptions
Assumption Three:
Values are an integral part of decision making.
Assumption Four: Decision making is a general pattern of action found in
the rational administration of all tasks and functions.
•Define the problem
•Analyze the difficulties in the situation
•Establish criteria for a satisfactory decision
•Develop a strategy of action
•Initiate a plan of action
•Evaluate the outcomes
•Tasks of Administration: C&I, supervision, finance & business, PR, etc.
•Functions of Administration: policy, resources, executive action
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
II The Administrative Model: Satisficing
Satisficing: Make a Satisfactory Decision
Recognize and Define the Problem
Initiate Action Plan
•Program
•Communicate
•Monitor
•Appraise
Analyze the Difficulties
Situation
•Get the Relevant Facts
•Classify the Problem
•Specify Problem
Develop a Plan of Action
•Consider Alternatives
•Weigh Consequences of Each Alternative
•Deliberate
•Select Course of Action
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Establish Criteria for a
Satisfactory Solution
II Steps in Administrative Model:
Satisficing
Step 1: Recognize and Define the Problem or Issue
•Be sensitive to difficulties.
•Define the problem: conceptualize it.
•Don’t define problem either too narrowly or broadly.
•What is the short-term problem?
•What is the long-term problem?
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Satisficing
Step 2: Analyze the Difficulties in Existing Situation
•Classify the problem.
•New problem or Old?
•Generic or Unique?
•Routine or Novel?
•Two common mistakes:
•Treat routine problem as new problem.
•Treat new problem as an old one.
•Get the Relevant Facts
•What is involved?
•Why?
•Where? And When?
•To what extent?
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Satisficing
Step 3: Establish Criteria for a Satisfactory Outcome
•What are the minimum objectives to be achieved.
•Compare your “musts” with your “wants.”
•Compare the ideal with satisfactory.
•What is good enough?
•The minimums that you must get to have a satisfactory
decision--the boundary conditions.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Satisficing
Step 4: Develop an Action Plan or Strategy
Warnings:
• Do not decide questions that are not pertinent.
• Do not decide prematurely.
• Do not make decisions that cannot be effective.
• Do not make decisions that others should make.
Developing a strategy is the heart of the decision-making process.
1. Specify your Alternatives.
2. Predict the Consequences.
3. Deliberate and Develop a Plan
Let’s examine each aspect of developing a strategy of action.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Develop Plan of Action
1. Specify Alternatives
•Develop a good list of alternatives--your options.
•Generally speaking the more options the better, but try for at
least a dozen; time is a constraint.
•Search for novel and creative options.
•Pause and reflect; avoid simple dichotomies.
•Always consider “doing nothing” as your first option.
In brief-•Make few dichotomous distinctions.
•Use divergent thinking strategies.
•Make and take time to develop a good set of alternatives.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
2. Predict Consequences
For each alternative, predict the probable consequences.
•Often the development of alternatives and consequences
occur together.
•Try to anticipate the unexpected.
•Groups are often important at this stage because the help
gauge the possible outcomes.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
3. Deliberate and Select Course of Action
•Reflectively analyze your options and their consequences.
•Develop a plan with contingencies.
•Start with first option and then go to second, third, etc.
depending on the actual consequences.
•Think as many steps ahead as you can.
•Be ready to shift plan if unexpected happens.
•If you cannot find an acceptable alternative, be prepared to
lower your aspiration level--lower criteria of satisfaction.
•Use some simple heuristics if possible.
•Be prepared to rethink your entire strategy if necessary.
•Develop and exit strategy
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Final Step in Satisficing
Step 5: Initiate and evaluate your plan of action
•Program.
•Communicate.
•Monitor.
•Assess success using criteria of satisfaction.
•The end is usually a new beginning.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Summary of Administrative Model:
Satisficing
Step 1: Recognize and Define the Problem or Issue
Step 2: Analyze the Difficulties in Existing Situation
Step 3: Establish Criteria for a Satisfactory Outcome
Step 4: Develop an Action Plan or Strategy
Step 5: Initiate and evaluate your plan of action
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
TRAPS IN DECISION MAKING TO AVOID
Anchoring Trap:
Giving disproportional weight to initial information
Comfort Trap:
A bias toward alternatives that support the status quo
Recognition Trap:
Tendency to place a higher value on that which is familiar
Representative Trap:
Tendency to see others as representative of the typical stereotype
Sunk-Cost Trap:
Tendency to make decisions that justify previous decisions that are not
working.
Framing Trap:
Framing of the problem impacts the eventual solution (Be careful.)
Prudence Trap:
Tendency to be overcautious when faced with high-stakes decisions
Memory Trap:
Tendency to base predictions on memory of past events, which are often
influenced by both recent and dramatic events
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
over-
III The Incremental Model:
Muddling
Muddling: Successive Limited Comparison
Charles Lindblom describes the way most decisions are made as the
process of muddling through.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A small and limited set of options are considered.
Options are only marginally different from existing situation.
Options are considered by comparing actual consequences.
Try the option and then observe consequences.
If consequences are fine, then a little more.
If consequences are negative, then back off and try
something different.
Focus is on outcomes and trial and error.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Muddling Through
Summary of Distinctive Features
•
•
•
•
•
Means-ends analysis is inappropriate because objectives and
generating alternatives occur simultaneously.
Good solutions are what decision makers agree to regardless of
objectives.
Alternatives and outcomes are drastically reduced by
considering only options similar to current state.
Analysis is restricted to differences between existing state and
proposed alternatives.
Muddling eschews theory in favor of successive comparison of
concrete, practical alternatives.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
IV The Mixed Scanning Model:
An Adaptive Strategy
Mixed Scanning is guided by two questions:
1. What is the organization’s mission?
2. What decisions move the organization towards its mission and policy?
Mixed scanning is a combination of the administrative model and mixed
scanning model; it is directed, incremental change.
Mixed scanning has its roots in medicine.
• A broad goal, mission, or policy guides the decision process.
• Decisions are made incrementally, but with the broad goal in
mind.
• Consequences are assessed in terms of the goal.
• Decisions are made with partial information.
• Then further small decisions are made if progress is good.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Principles of Mixed Scanning
1. Use focused trial and error.
2. Be tentative--proceed with caution.
3. If uncertain, procrastinate.
4. Stagger your decisions in stages.
5. If uncertain, factionalize your decisions.
6. Hedge your bets.
7. Be prepared to reverse your decisions.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Mixed Scanning
Summary of Distinctive Features
•
•
•
•
•
Broad organization policy gives direction and provides
guidance.
Good decisions have satisfactory outcomes and are consistent
with policy and mission.
The search for options is limited to those close to the
problem.
Information is incomplete but action essential.
Theory, experience, and successive comparisons are used
together.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Comparison of the Classical, Administrative, Incremental,
and Mixed-Scanning Models of Decision Making
Classical
Administrative
Incremental
Mixed Scanning
Objectives are set
prior to generating
alternatives
Objectives are usually
set prior to
generating alternatives.
Setting objectives and
generating alternatives
are intertwined.
Broad policy guidelines
are set prior to
generating alternatives.
Decision making is
a means-ends
analysis: first, ends
are determined, and
then ALL the means to
obtain them are sought.
Decision making is
typically means-ends
analysis; however,
occasionally ends change
as a result of analysis.
Because means and
ends are not
separable, meansends analysis is
inappropriate.
Decision making is
focused on broad ends
and tentative means.
The test of a good
decision is that it is
shown to be the BEST
means to achieve the
end.
The test of a good decision
is that it can be shown to
result in a SATISFACTORY
means to achieve the end;
it falls within the
established boundary
conditions.
The test of a good decision
is that the decision
makers can agree an
alternative is the “right”
direction when the
existing course proves to
be wrong.
The test of a good decision
is that it can be shown to
result in a satisfactory
decision that is consistent
with the organization’s
policy.
(Optimizing)
(Satisficing)
(Successive comparing)
(Adaptive satisficing)
Engage in comprehensive
analysis; all alternatives
and all consequences
are considered.
Engage in “problemistic
search” until a set of
reasonable alternatives
is identified.
Drastically limit the search
and analysis; focus on
alternatives similar to the
existing state. Many
alternatives and important
outcomes are ignored.
Limit the search and analysis to
alternatives close to the problem,
but evaluate alternatives in
terms of broad policy. More
comprehensive than
incrementalism.
Heavy reliance on theory.
Reliance on both theory and
experience.
Successive comparisons reduce
or eliminate the need for theory.
Theory, experience, and successive
Comparisons used together.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
V
A Contingency Model of
Decision Making
Yes
Yes
No
Satisficing
No
Truncated Satisficing
Yes
Adaptive Satisficing
No
Truncated Adaptive
Satisficing
Yes
Adaptive Satisficing
No
Truncated Adaptive
Satisficing
Yes
Muddling to
Adaptive Satisficing
No
Muddling
Important?
Sufficient
Time?
Decision
Opportunity
Yes
Important?
Sufficient
Information?
Yes
No
Important?
Sufficient
Time?
No
Important?
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Swift and Smart DM Rules
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Satisficing Rule:
Framing Rule:
Default Rule:
Simplicity rule:
Uncertainty Rule:
Optimizing is impossible in school administration: learn to satisfice.
Frame problems in positive terms for positive results.
Consider as a first option “doing nothing.”
Simplicity trumps complexity; start simple.
Uncertain environments often require ignoring information;
trust your intuition in this regard.
Take-the-Best Rule: Choose the first satisfactory option.
Transparency Rule: Make transparency in decision making a habit of thought
and action.
Contingency Rule: Reflect on your successes and failures; think conditionally.
Participation Rule: Involve others in decisions when you deem they have relevant
knowledge, a personal stake, and are trustworthy.
End
Decision Making in Schools
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Practical Imperatives
• Use satisficing models of decision making: Optimizing is impossible.
• Frame problems in ways that enhance positive, productive solutions: Framing
does affect solutions.
• View decision making as a continuous process: There are no final solutions.
• View problems in terms of both short- and long-term goals: Immediate actions
should be consistent with long-term goals.
• Employ decision-making heuristics carefully: Avoid their hidden traps.
• Use adaptive satisficing when information is vague or overwhelming or when
time is of the essence: Adapt decision making to these decision constraints.
• Employ objectives, mission, or policy to guide your decisions making: Adaptive
satisficing needs direction.
• Decide on the appropriate decision-making strategy: Assess the sufficiency of
information, available time, and the importance of the decision before deciding.
• Use soft vigilance to solve problems under pressure: Hypervigilance produces
panic.
• Remember there are no final solutions, but only satisfactory solutions for the
present.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011