College and Research Libraries Recognizing Multiple Decision-making Models: A Guide for Managers Joan Giesecke Empirical studies of decision making find that the process is more disorderly than described in rational models. New models have appeared that suggest that managers need to accommodate the randomness found in complex organiza- tions. This article examines two approaches for dealing with this disorder: the political-bargaining model and the garbage can model. The essay clarifies the differences between these two approaches and assesses their usefulness to managers for understanding tlze decision-making process. • he decision-making process in academic libraries is be- coming more complex and · . confusing as the environment for the organizations becomes more am- biguous. Academic library managers face the particularly difficult challenge of try- ing to understand and manage the deci- sion-making process at a time when the university environment is changing, the information delivery mechanisms are in flux, and the economic climate is un- stable. This environment for the library can be described as an organized anarchy where goals are ambiguous, organiza- tional processes are unclear, and fluid par- ticipation in the decision-making process exists. Nonetheless, within this setting, decision making remains a primary task for managers who must now understand not only the content of the decision- making choice but also the context in which the decision is being made. Managers must be able to recognize which decision-making methods are being em- ployed if they wish to understand and influence the process. This is because the method used affects what alternatives are considered, determines who can par- ticipate in the process, and influences how choices are made. Managers must be able to analyze accurately the deci- sion-making context if they are to em- ploy effecti.ve strategies for guiding the process to a successful conclusion. Although the models for decision making developed in the fields of soci- ology, organizational development, and management are applicable to the aca- demic library environment, researchers have found that the reality of decision making is more chaotic than many of the models assume. In fact, in such complex organizations as academic libraries, more than one decision-making method may be used in any given situation. This article begins with a theoretical overview of three major decision-making models which are applicable to the library environment: the rational model, the political-bargaining model, and the gar- bage can model. Next, a framework for identifying two of the models of decision making, the political-bargaining model and the garbage can model, is presented. These two models were chosen for the Joan Giesecke is Associate Dean for Collections and Services at University Libraries, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0410. 103 104 College & Research Libraries study because they developed as alterna- tives to the rational model, have been pre- sented as more realistic than the rational model, and because clear guidelines had not been developed to help managers dis- tinguish between these two methods. This framework is then tested in a case study set in an academic library to determine if the framework can help managers distin- guish among decision-making methods. Finally, strategies for library managers to use for effectively working within these processes are provided. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Decision making became a subject in its own right at the turn of the century, when administrators sought ways to re- spond to the growing complexity of their political arena. During this early period, the management literature tried to im- prove decision making by applying more rational procedures. As James Burns notes, "Classical thinking about decision making has viewed the process as an essentially orderly and rational one. A problem is de- fined and isolated; information is gathered; alternatives are set forth; an end is estab- lished; means are created to achieve that end; a choice is made."1 Managers were urged to maximize the values of efficiency and economy. The rational model was part of a broad orthodoxy that emphasized scientific principles of management, a scientific approach to personnel manage- ment, and budgeting as an instrument of rationality, coordination, and control. The rational modelofdecision making offered an impartial scientific process for decision making and was reinforced by the success of operations research and systems analysis techniques during World War IF In spite of this prescriptive emphasis, studies of how decisions were actually made in complex organizations showed that, in practice, the process was not as orderly as the models assumed. Rather, it appears that decision making is a messy, disorderly process and, hence, is difficult to describe and analyze.3 Two models that were developed as alternatives to the rational model and that try to address this complexity are the political-bargaining model and the March 1993 garbage can model. In the political-bar- gaining model, decisions are the result of bargaining and compromise by partici- pants rather than rational analysis of a problem. When preferences among par- ticipants conflict, power determines the outcomes of the process.4 In the garbage can model, decisions are not the result of conscious choice, planning, or negotia- tion, but rather are determined by the timing of events or by chance. Decision making is described as an activity where relatively independent problems, solu- tions, and participants come together, and may or may not resolve a problem.5 The political-bargaining model has been reasonably well developed and is frequently used as a basis for research.6 It is both descriptive and prescriptive. While the garbage can model or re- visionist model has received considera- ble attention and is routinely included in standard texts on organizational theory, the model has not been as well developed nor its terms defined. 7 It is primarily de- scriptive and does not provide as clear signals for improving the decision- making process. Because the two models have emerged out of dissatisfaction with the rational model, more energy has been spent on distinguishing them from the rational model than from each other. However, the political bargaining and the garbage can models are often hard to distinguish because they encompass many of the same characteristics of organizations and deci- sion makers. As Charles Perrow has ar- gued, many of the case studies used to describe the garbage can model could just as easily be used to illustrate political-bar- gaining processes.8 To clarify the differ- ences, this study begins by presenting an analytical framework that compares the two models. The study then applies both models to a decision-making situation to compare their utility for understanding the decision-making situation. Finally, the study explores the implications and uses of the models. FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS The research on decision making is often presented through comparisons of the various models of decision making.9 Generally, comparisons of decision- making models view the process as a series of stages that can be identified and separated. This stage analysis makes the process seem more organized than it is in complex organizations and makes it difficult to distinguish between political- bargaining and garbage can processes. Furthermore, the descriptions of the gar- bage can model presented by theorists generally repeat the basic framework de- scribed by James G. March, Michael Cohen, and Johan Olsen, but rarely add to or clarify the concepts presented by the originators of the model.10 The political-bargaining model views organizations as 11 alive and screaming political arenas that house a complex variety of individuals and interest groups." The framework for this study addreSses these issues by beginning with concepts within the models rather than stages of the process. It includes three categories of variables based on the criticisms of the rational model: characteristics of the or- ganization, characteristics of the decision- making process, and problem-solving methods (the dependent variable). Chara- cteristics of the organization include four variables: degree of ambiguity about goals, from unambiguous to ambiguous; degree of certainty about organizational process, from certain to uncertain; degree of structure in the organization, from structured to unstructured; and adequacy of organizational resources, from excess to scarce. Characteristics of the decision-making process include four variables: interdependence of partic- ipants, from interdependent to independ- ent; diffusion of power, from centralized to dispersed; use of information by partici- pants, from used to not used; and partic- ipants' perception of the issue, from important to unimportant. In the next sections, the models are described using this framework. By looking at these different concepts, the A Guide for Managers 105 framework, then, as summarized in table 1, makes it possible to distinguish the political bargaining and the garbage can models from each other. POLITICAL-BARGAINING MODEL OF DECISION MAKING The political-bargaining model views organizations as "alive and screaming political arenas that house a complex variety of individuals and interest groups." 11 Because an organization is viewed as a coalition of diverse interests, organizations are seen as having multi- ple, conflicting goals which change as the balance of power changes. In this system, outcomes or decisions are the result of bargaining behavior. Individu- als and interest groups enter into bar- gaining situations in an effort to influence goals and decision making in the system. They continue to bargain only as long as they believe they will benefit from continuing to participate in the process. Individuals do not need to agree on goals and values. They only need to agree to bargain. Characteristics of the Organization The political-bargaining model begins with multiple, conflicting goals for the organization. It assumes that people's behavior is purposeful and based on their objectives, and that individual goals remain consistent throughout the decision-making process. Furthermore, because the decision-making process in- volves multiple actors with conflicting views, participants are likely to be uncer- tain as to the connections between their actions and the outcomes of the process. Still, the political-bargaining model assumes that decision-making processes are intentional rather than random. The organizational structures which exist will preselect players, may determine the player's point of entrance into the game, and may distribute advantages and dis- advantages to each group. Organizational rules, players' positions within the hierar- chy, and imposed deadlines all help struc- ture the bargaining process. However, the rules apply only to participants in the process. Problems and solutions are not 106 College & Research Libraries March 1993 TABLEt FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS I. Characteristics of the Organization A. Process of Goal Definition 1. Well-defined 2. Ill-defined 3. Emerging B. Degree of Certainty about Organizational Processes 1. Certain 2. Uncertain C. Degree of Structure in the Organization 1. Structured 2. Unstructured D. Adequacy of Organizational Resources 1. Scarce 2. Excess II. Characteristics of the Decision-making Process A. Degree of Interdependence of Participants 1. Interdependent 2. Independent B. Diffusion of Power 1. Centralized 2. Dispersed or distributed C. Use of Information by Participants 1. Gathered and used 2. Gathered but not used D. Participants' Perception of the Issue 1. Important 2. Unimportant III. Method by Which the Process Solves Problems A. Political bargaining model: bargaining until participants are willing to accept a decision B. Garbage can model: ad hoc process; problems are resolved when participants no longer consider the issue a problem considered as separate entities in the decision-making process. In addition, resources are assumed to be scarce and participants come into conflict as they seek to maximize their own interests and resources. Characteristics of the Decision-making Process In the political-bargaining model, par- ticipa·nts are interdependent. They react to the actions of others and take other participants into account as they plan their own strategies. Managers have to assess power throughout the organiza- tion as it is imperative that they accu- rately diagnose power to use bargaining strategies ranging from coalition build- ing to co-optation successfully. Information plays an important part in the decision-making process. Information is gathered to help the decision maker in assessing alternatives . The political-bar- gaining model emphasizes the cost of gathering information and recognizes that participants may not seek informa- tion on all alternative solutions to a prob- lem. They gather information to support their views and then may use that infor- mation in their bargaining process as they try to guess how other participants will respond. Finally, the political-bargaining model predicts that, if an issue is perceived to be important, then participants will use bargaining tactics, incremental strate- gies, and coalition building techniques as they try to gain their own objectives within the organization. Negotiation and compromise are likely to occur as participants seek to keep the game of decision making progressing toward a resolution. The issue is resolved at the point that participants agree to accept the decision. However, this may not be a final solution. Because there may be winners and losers in the process, par- ticipants who lose in one decision may return to fight the issue another day. In the political-bargaining model, deci- sions can be reconsidered if participants choose to continue to pursue the issue. In summary, the political-bargaining model views the decision-making process as a bargaining game where individuals pursue their own interests within the or- ganization, but do so by taking others into account. Conflict is legitimate as individu- als have different objectives and different amounts of power to pursue their goals. Participants' behavior is purposeful. The organization, however, may not appear as such because participants simultaneously pursue multiple, conflicting goals. GARBAGE CAN MODEL OF DECISION MAKING March, Cohen, and Olsen have de- veloped a model of decision making known as the garbage can model to describe decision-making processes in organiza- . tions that are characterized by ambigu- ity. Although classical theories of choice, which assume that goals and objectives are the basis for action, proved unable to explain the confusion that actually goes A Guide for Managers 107 on in complex organizations, garbage can studies present a picture of decision making that seems pathological when compared to those assumed by classical theories. 12 Problems appear in various parts of the organization and then disap- pear without being resolved. Managers spend time making decisions that are not implemented. Participants drop in and out of the decision-making process, seeming to appear at random in deci- sion-making opportunities. Characteristics of the Organization The garbage can model begins with the assumption that an organization's goals are problematic or ambiguous. Un- like the political-bargaining model, objec- . tives may also be ill-defined or inconsistent for individual decision makers. Individuals are, in fact, often uncertain about how or- ganizational processes function. As a result, the links between problems, solutions, and people are not always dear. Decision makers find that the outcomes of decision- making opportunities are only loosely connected to the decision-making pro- cess. Although organizational structures or rules and regulations help determine how problems, solutions, and participants can be linked, in loosely structured organiza- tions, that initial linking of problems and participants does not guarantee that problems, solutions, and participants will remain stable, consistent, or linked throughout the process. Furthermore, the amount of resources in the organization affects the number of decision-making opportunities. When there are excess resources, managers can create enough decision-making opportunities to satisfy everyone who wants to participate in the decision-making process. When re- sources are scarce, not all demands will be met. "Political-bargaining strategies are likely to be employed by participants, and power can take the place of contextual or chance factors in the decision-making situation." 13 Characteristics of the Decision-making Process Participants function independently of each other as they choose to attend 108 College & Research Libraries various decision-making opportunities. Problems, solutions, or participants may adjust, change, or react independently and are not likely to be stable throughout the process. Therefore, participants have limited ability to influence the outcome of the decision-making process, and there can be a lot of discontinuity. Infor- mation may be gathered and not used when participants find themselves ad- dressing different problems as the deci- sion-making process develops. Both the political-bargaining model and the garbage can model provide librarians with ideas on how to successfully manage the decision-making process. Garbage can processes are apt to be most evident when organizations have to deal with issues that are perceived to be important. The reason is that impor- tant decisions attract a large number of participants, problems, and solutions, and typically address the problems of scarce resources and those that involve highly emotional, powerful, symbolically visible, or technically fuzzy issues.14 In summary, the garbage can model cap- tures the complex environment that sur- rounds organizational decision making. It does not concentrate on one or two major concepts to explain decision making, but assumes that there are numerous explana- tory variables that may affect the process. The model includes the wide range of con- fusing events that impinge on the process but which are not covered in other mod- els of decision making. The strength of the model is its ability to account for much of the apparently random be- havior that is observed in organizations. It is intuitively satisfying because it brings a level of understanding to or- ganizational behavior that has not been well covered in other models. Therefore, the political-bargaining model and the garbage can model share some of the same characteristics (see table 2). There are, however, important differences between them. Specifically, March 1993 the garbage can model emphasizes ill- defined goals for individuals and the independence of the participants in the process, while the political-bargaining model stresse.s multiple goals only for the organization and the interdepen- dence of the participants. The next step in the research was to apply the two models to a decision- making situation to determine if the dis- tinctions provided by this framework, particularly for the variables of goal defi- nition and degree of independence of participants, were significant enough to distinguish garbage can processes from political-bargaining processes. RESEARCH METHODS To examine the two models, each model was used to study a decision about the best system for governing a university library. 15 To conduct the research in studying the decision-making process, it seemed ap- propriate to use a case study method along with participant observation.16 By being part of the process, one is better able to describe the context of the decision- making process, to identify the inten- tions of participants in the process, and to trace problems, solutions, and partici- pants in the process. The problems and difficulties associated with the case study method and one participant observer re- cording and interpreting events are ac- knowledged.17 Although the process allows for a detailed description of the ob;erved cul- ture or organization, the observer must be aware of the possibility that participants may change their behavior if they know they are being observed, may be influenced by the researcher, or may try to misdirect the ob- server.18 Because the author was familiar with the organization chosen for the case study, the author was in a position to try to evaluate if the actions of participants were consistent with their behavior in other decision-making situations. Furthermore, whenever possible, informal interviews and documentation were used to support or deny the author's interpretations. Data Collection Information about the decision-mak- ing process was obtained in four ways: A Guide for Managers 109 TABLE2 COMPARISON OF THE RATIONAL, POLITICAL BARGAINING AND GARBAGE CAN MODELS Characteristics of Organization Variable Rational Political Bargaining Garbage Can Goals Well-defined; Goals are known but Ill-defined, may emerge at any time consistent may differ among participants consistent for individual Degree of certainty Assumes certainty Degree of structure Highly structured Adequacy of resources Assumed adequate High degree of uncertainty Structure defines particular roles Scarce High degree of uncertainty May be unstructured or partially structured Excess or scarce Characteristics of Decision-making Process Variable Rational Political Bargaining Garbage Can Degree of interdependency Diffusion of power Roles are defined Authority is part of bureaucratic structure Interdependent Independent Dispersed Dispersed Use of information Gathered and used Gathered and used Gathered, used or not used Perception of issue May be important Important Important or unimportant Method of solving problems Value-maximization Bargaining, coalition Ad hoc direct participant observation as a member of the library faculty, inter- views with participants throughout the decision-making process, examina- tion of minutes of meetings and docu- ments related to the process, and interviews with key participants in- volved in the process after the gover- nance document was completed. Interviews were particularly important. During the decision-making process, infor- mal interviews were conducted with most participants in the process. Throughout the process, two main questions were asked. First, participants were asked if they believed the decision-making process was progressing, and if their concerns were being addressed. Second, participants were asked what other activities were building important to them in addition to the governance decision-making process. Upon the conclusion of the decision- making process, formal interviews were conducted with the major participants . .The participants were interviewed over a six-month period to determine how they saw the process once it was completed. They were asked open-ended questions, such as: How do you feel about the process? Do you believe the process ade- quately addressed the issues? What problems do you think we were trying to solve? What incidents stand out as sig- nificant? What other activities were you involved in during the process? Follow-up interviews were conducted with participants when clarification was needed. The information gathered from 110 College & Research Libraries the interviews was supplemented by data gathered from written documents, minutes of meetings, and university and library pub- lications. Data from the notes; minutes, and documents were used to verify and correct · the recollections of participants and to identify actions that fit into the official chronology of events. Case Study: Applying the Models to a Decision about University Governance A university committee charged with designing a governance system for the library worked for a year and a half to design a system that would "provide for procedures of due process (regarding employment issues for librarians) and would establish a mechanism by which the Library Director could consult with the professional librarians on matters concerning the quality and development of the library program and staff." 19 The issue was important for the librar-:- ians because it involved their employ- ment status and established procedures for the evaluation and promotion of the professional librarians. Four groups were active in the decision process. The univer- sity's administration was represented on the committee by the associate vice-chan- cellor for academic affairs. The adminis- tration felt that the librarians should change their current system of governance so that it provided some job security for the librarians but eliminated the current tenure system for librarians. The library director, who served on the committee, also favored eliminating tenure for librarians and wanted thedirectortohavemoreinput into promotion and evaluation decisions. Two librarians also served on the gover- nance committee and were responsible for representing the views of the librarians and for conveying the librarians' con- cerns to the administration. Representa- tion proved to be a difficult task, however, as the broader set of librarians did not have a common objective in the process and as factions emerged among them as the process developed. A minority group of librarians held that librarians should retain their current tenure system. This group formed early in the process and consistently held to their views. March 1993 They were unwilling to compromise with the administration and argued that the administration did not offer any pro- posals that were better than the tenure system. Most of the librarians, on the other hand, did not hold firmly to any particular viewpoint. At first, they sup- ported a modified tenure proposal, a proposal rejected by the administration early in the process. As the debates con- tinued over a period of months, the ma- jority of librarians failed to come to a firm consensus on what type of system they wanted. As time passed, the librar- ians became involved in other projects in the library and devoted less and less time to the governance debate. Some librarians who were active in the begin- ning of the process and then moved on to other issues returned to the gover- nance debates near the end of the process. These librarians tried to reintroduce their concerns into the debates as if the topics under discussion had not changed in their absence. Although the decision-making process allows for a detailed description of the observed culture or organization, the observer must be aware of the possibility that participants may change their behavior if they know they are being observed, may be influenced by the researcher, or may try to misdirect the observer In the meantime, the two librarians on the governance committee attempted to survey the librarians a number of times for input. Each vote yielded a different result. Sometimes the librarians favored tenure, and sometimes they favored multiyear contracts. In the end, the librarians on the committee supported the university administration and the li- brary director, proposing for the librarians a multiyear contract system that offered some job security to the librarians but denied them tenure. The majority of the librarians accepted this proposal with little debate on the merits of the system and without resolving the conflicts with the minority group of librarians. The minority group continued to oppose the proposal, sought legal assistance, and spent their energy trying to have the decision changed, but were unable to persuade the other participants in the process to accept their viewpoint. DISCUSSION OF THE CASE STUDY The framework for the analysis did prove to be a useful way to distinguish between political-bargaining and gar- bage can processes in the case study. The political-bargaining model successfully describes the actions of the minority group of librarians and the university administration. Both groups had con- sistent goals and engaged in bargaining tactics in an effort to achieve their pri- mary objectives. The model also predicts that groups will seek to maintain or in- crease their power and that the eventual decision will reflect the positions of those with the most power. The admin- istration, which was seen as the group with the most power, achieved its pri- mary objective of creating a different governance process for the librarians. The minority group was unsuccessful in its attempt to increase its power by seek- ing legal assistance in its efforts to keep its limited tenure system as an option for the current library faculty. Nevertheless, the model does not explain or predict the rather inconsistent behavior of the ma- jority of the librarians who held no firm opinions on the governance issues. The garbage can model, on the other hand, accurately describes the random actions of the majority of the librarians. The librarians drifted through the process, first supporting the current tenure system, and then moving to multiyear contracts without carefully considering the alternatives or thinking through their positions. They did not try to develop coalitions or to amass support for a particular position. Individually, they changed their stances on the issues, inconsistently voting for one position one week, and another position the next. Others in the process could not count on their continued support for any particu- lar proposal. Furthermore, individuals A Guide for Managers 111 who felt strongly about the issues in the beginning were distracted by other events, as the debates continued. Some librarians who initially argued passionately for a particular point of view, later dropped out of the process, then reappeared at the end of the debates when other events had lost their attention. These individuals then tried to argue for a variety of viewpoints without considering the changes that had occurred in their absence. The librarians attended library faculty meetings about the governance issue until they found something else to do. They moved on to new issues without resolving the problems in the gover- nance process. Too, they raised unre- lated issues in the governance debates whenever something caught their atten- tion. As a consequence of this behavior, the governance meetings included de- bates about performance appraisal forms, personnel evaluation systems outside of tenure issues, and affirmative action reg- ulations. The garbage can model ac- counts for these diverse debates by noting that problems can appear in un- related decision-making opportunities and that participants will use whatever opportunities are available to them to discuss concerns. CONCLUSIONS Utility of the Models One conclusion of the case study was the demonstration that political-bar- gaining and garbage can processes can exist in the same decision-making situa- tion and managers can use the frame- work presented here to distinguish between the different approaches. Once managers are able to identify the approach most likely to be taken by participants, they can alter their own strategies to affect the outcome of the process. That is, managers can seek to adjust their strate- gies to influence other participants. When political-bargaining behavior is evident, participants can view the deci- sion-making process as a game of win- ners and losers, and develop strategies for trying to maximize their own gains in the process. Strategies that have been developed to help decision makers 112 College & Research Libraries manage political-bargaining processes include game theory, bargaining tactics, satisficing strategies, and incremental strategies.20 As Charles Lindblom noted, these strategies allow for pluralistic in- terests in complex organizations.21 To identify garbage can processes and to let go of the rational imperative, managers can ask themselves the follow- ing types of questions. Are unrelated problems being discussed at decision- making opportunities as if the problems were related? Do solutions appear on agendas before problems have been dis- cussed? Do participants attend all meet- ings or is their attendance sporadic? Do participants say that meetings are im- portant, but still fail to attend? These types of questions begin to explore the concepts that are part of the garbage can model and may help managers to recog- nize the independence of participants, problems, and solutions. When political-bargaining behavior is evident, participants can view the decision-making process as a game of winners and losers, and develop strategies for trying to maximize their own gains in the process. Once managers recognize that a deci- sion-making process resembles the gar- bage can model, they have at least three possible responses: add controls, adapt to the process, or embrace the process.22 In the first strategy, managers can try to add structure, rules, or regulations to the decision-making process to limit the movement of problems, solutions, and participants throughout the process. In the second strategy, managers adapt their own style to maximize their ability to influence the decision-making process. Tactics such as setting deadlines, spend- ing a lot of time on a problem, and per- sisting with an issue can all affect the overall process. Further, managers can try to affect the timing of events by over- loading the system with problems. This tactic should distract participants from some of the issues so that the manager is March 1993 more likely to be able to pursue his or her own agenda. Finally, as a third strategy, managers can embrace the process and increase flexibility in the organization. Managers may suspend rules and en- courage participants to act first and think later in an effort to bring creativity into the decision-making process.23 Of course, managers will need to com- bine a variety of strategies to be effective in this ambiguous environment. For ex- ample, they can use bargaining strate- gies, negotiation, and coalition building techniques with those participants fol- lowing a political-bargaining strategy. These strategies are not likely to be effec- tive, however, with participants who have ill-defined goals and are acting in- dependently of each other. For these in- dividuals, managers should switch tactics. Here setting controls, establish- ing deadlines, and overloading the sys- tem with problems may be effective in allowing the manager to influence the outcome of the decision-making process. Furthermore, although such strategies as spending time on an issue and per- sisting with an issue can be effective in both political-bargaining and garbage can processes, this is not true for most tactics. For example, a tactic such as overloading the system with problems in order to distract participants, which can work in the garbage can model, is not likely to be effective in the political- bargaining situation. This is because participants who are dedicated to a cause are apt to ignore other issues and concentrate on their major agenda. The manager, then, needs to recognize this dedication and adopt strategies to work effectively with such groups. In summary, both the political-bargain- ing model and the garbage can model pro- vide librarians with ideas on how to successfully manage the decision-making process. Whil~ the political-bargaining model prescribes betterorganizationalstruc- tures to use to understand, manage, and improve the decision-making process, the garbage can model emphasizes the impor- tant role of the manager in understanding the decision-making process. By concen- trating on organizational processes rather A Guide for Managers 113 than on organizational structures, the gar- bage can model gives a more complete pic- ture or description of the complexities of the decision-making process. It provides managers with clues as to how to func- tion effectively in times of organiza- tional change and under conditions that seem chaotic. By using the framework for analysis presented here, managers can begin to distinguish between the two approaches and can become more success- . ful at identifying appropriate strategies to use to influence the outcomes of decision- making processes. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. James Burns, Leadership (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), 379. 2. For example see Charles Perrow, Complex Organizations (New York: Random, 1986) and Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York: Free Pr., 1976). 3. For example, see Morgan McCall and Robert Kaplan, Whatever It Takes: Decision Makers at Work (New York: Prentice Hall, 1985) and John Kingdon, Agenda, Alternative, and Public Policies (Boston: Little, 1984). 4. Jeffrey Pfeffer, Power in Organizations (Marshfield, Mass.: Pitman, 1981), 28. 5. Ibid., 26. 6. Graham Allison, "Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis," American Political Science Review 63 (1969): 689-718; Victor Baldridge, Power and Conflict in the University (New York: Wiley, 1971); Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal, Modern Approaches to Under- standing and Managing Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984); Richard Cyert and James G. March, A Behavorial Theory of the Firm (New York: Prentice Hall, 1983); Charles Lindblom, "Science of Muddling Through," Public Administration Review 19 (1959): 79-88; Jeffrey Pfeffer, Power in Organizations; Simon, Administrative Behavior. 7. Michael Cohen, James G. March, and Johan Olsen, "A Garbage Can Model of Organi- zational Choice," Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1972): 1-19. 8. Charles Perrow, "Ambiguity and Choice in Organization," Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews 63 (1977): 294-98. 9. For example, the classic work by Graham Allison (see note 6) provides a comparison of three models of decision making, including the rational model, the bureaucratic model, and the political-bargaining model. Bolman and Deal (1984) use four major categories: rational, human relations, political, and symbolic in their work on under- standing decision making in organizations. Jeffrey Pfeffer (1981) details the political- bargaining model, and provides brief descriptions of the rational, bureaucratic, and garbage can models. Lawrence Pinfield (1986) divides the decision-making models into structured and unstructured models and compares the characteristics of these two broad categories of models. Anne Grandori (1984) compares various strategies of decision making on the two fundamental dimensions of uncertainty and conflict of 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. interest. Cohen et al., "A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice." Bolman and Deal, Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organization, 250. McCall and Kaplan, Whatever It Takes: Decision Makers at Work, xi. Michael Moch and Louis Pondy, "Structure of Chaos: Organized Anarchy as a Re- sponse to Ambiguity," Administrative Science Quarterly 22 (1977): 357. Bolman and Deal, Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations, 250. The identity of the university for this case and the identity of the participants have been masked to maintain the confidentiality of the interviews. 16. A pilot study was conducted as part of the full research, and revisions were made in the framework and in the methodology to resolve problems identified in the pretest. 17. For a more complete analysis of the limitations associated with this methodology, see 18. 19. Joan R. Giesecke, Making Decisions under Chaotic Conditions (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univer- sity Microfilms, 1988). Earl Babbie, Practice of Social Research (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing, 1983) and Clifford Geetz, Interpretation of Cultures (Newbury Parks, Calif.: Sage, 1983). Vice Chancellor, memo to Library Director, 1985. 114 College & Research Libraries March 1993 20. 21. 22. 23. For further information about political-bargaining strategies, see Baldridge, Power and Conflict in the University; Bolman and Deal, Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations; Anna Grandori, "A Prescriptive Contingency View of Organi- zations," Administrative Science Quarterly 29 (1984): 192-209; Lindblom, "Science of Muddling Through"; Pfeffer, Power in Organizations. Lindblom, "Science of Muddling Through," 81-83. James G. March and Roger Weissinger-Baylon, Ambiguity and Command (Marshfield, Mass.: Pitman, 1986), 23-24. James G. March and Johann Olsen, Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations (Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1979), 78-79. OCLC/ AMIGOS Collection Analysis Systems Make a wise investment. Choose from three options to analyze your library's data: Collection Analysis CD compares quantitative data BCL3 Tape Match measures against a standard Tape Analysis fits individual specifications Available exclusively from AMIGOS Bibliographic Council, Inc. 12200 Park Central Drive, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75251 214/851-8000 or 800/843-8482