Regarding group pressure, Huber (1980: Chapter 9) notes whenever decisions are made, and particularly in group decisions such as the expanded organizational process, the dynamics of the situation put great pressures on the individual not to deviate from the decision of the group. The deviant voice in the group decision-making process is less likely to express itself the later into the process the situation is. Even when he/she does offer a minority view with any conviction, he or she will find the rest of the group trying to argue his/her position into submission, or to seduce him/her with the relief of conformity. If those tactics don't work, he/she can face temporary or permanent ostracism from the group. Unless the inidividual voicing a stong minority opinion is completely convinced of the advantages of his/her position, he/she will likely fold in fatigue or fright in the face of these counter-arguments from the majority group. Few minority views are worth losing a job over. Irving Janis called this phenomenon "groupthink" (Allison 1999: 283)and is credicted with such monumental blunders as the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by United States-backed Cuban refugees bent on ousting the Castro Regime. It is argued, in retrospect, that many of the governmental advisors in on the Bay of Pigs planning doubted statistics supplied by the Central Intelligence Agency but were hesitant to deviate from the majority opinion. The groupthink phenomenon tends, then, to form a censor in each individual which causes him to lean toward whatever majority opinion emerges from the group. This phenomenon is another of the disadvantages of the expanded decision-making process, but it can be guarded against by insisting on each individual's making clear all his/her views on the issues at hand - - - no matter how relevant or trite those views may appear to be at first glance - - - and by providing a comfortable and reassuring environment in which such views can be safely expressed.
The second sociological factor weighing on the decision making process in a group is the factor of unrecognized social pressures.
David Allison (1977) write that these unrecognized sociological factors cause the decision-maker to perform a kind of balancing act: "If we like a man, we tend to think positively of what he does or says, and decided in favor of his proposal. If we do not like him, we see faults and problems with what he does and says - - even if his calculations might be more accurate. Further complicating the decision making is the fact that I'm a member of several groups. Many of my beliefs about people, problems, and things I have not experienced firsthand come from conversations with people I trust. Example: George sits down to talk with me and I feel relaxed. I try to evaluate his istimate of the cost on a computer program, (but) someone I trust just said that George did an outstanding job on the last program, (and) I'm almost ready to accept anything he says" (pp. 54-55).
Allison concludes that "social pyschologists and sociologists refer to this natural, human phenomenon as the use of reference groups to establish our beliefs" (p. 55).
Internal balance is the third of those sociological factors affecting the decision-making process.
Huber (1980: Chapter 9) and Kathleen Iannello (1992: 109-110) indicate in this regard that sociological and psychological factors dealing with social interactions such as group decisions are primarily based on theories of balance. For instance, most of such theories point out that we can expect a close relationship between an individual's "perceived attributes" and the "goodies he believes he should receive." This means that in industry, for example, people with more value attributes (male instead of female, older instead of younger, more experience instead of less) should receive a greater share of the rewards - - - pay, office size, secretary, etc.
And in the same way, the "high-attribute people" expect and in fact usually demand more decision making power, regardless of their "actual technical competence." The same balanced notions indicate that once a person has committed himself publicly and privately to a course of action, he feels great emotional restraint against reversing the path.
And finally Allison (1999: 307-308), Huber (1980: Chapter 9) and Iannello (1992: 116) write about the final of the four primary sociological factors influencing the roup decision-making process - - - intergroup conflict. Ianello notes Staggenborg’s critique of women’s groups as often torn apart by internal conflict and dissolve before finishing tasks.
There is first the matter of linking together the subparts of the organization. The conflict in this regard can be utitlized to make the process more enthusiastic, but if the head decision-maker is not expert or subtle enough in his manipulation, the situation can escalate out of control: "By getting two groups to compete with each other, the internal espirit de corps of each can be made to rise dramatically, while the communication between the two (groups) turns to razzing and jibes. If later, cooperation is required, the competition that was so easy to create is very difficult to undo, and we suffer through long periods of strained accomodation" (David Allison 1977: 56).
And secondly (in the matter of intergroup conflict) there is usually the issue of the allocation of what are limited resources. Even moderate shifts in this allocation throughout the process produces a demoralizing effect on the "losers" who view their contributions, past or potential, as going unrecognized or unrewarded.
Another intergroup conflict and related problem which can wreak havoc with "decision rationality" is conflicting goas: different values (Iannello 1992). The civic argument states older members want to have an opportunity to share experience and support each other in extending the membership. Networking indicates young members need social and professional network for career advancement. "To a great extent, all members of the organization, as individuals, are torn over the conflict between a civic and a networking focus . . . As a whole, the organization attempts to maintain balance and accommodate the conflict over values. In doing this, it pays a price. The price is constant conflict, frustration, and a declining membership"(116).
While the course readings in this analysis of sociological factors mentions negative results which can occur from an expanded decision-making process which includes more and more employees. The authors also emphasize the positive results which can extend even far beyond decision-making itself.
My experience and the readings point out that we all want to feel a sense of belongingness to the group in which we find ourselves. This social drive is active and perhaps most alert in the work group, where an inability to satisfy this important urge will cause the individual to quit the group if possible.
Many of the aforementioned difficulties and conflicts and inhibitions of the expanded decision-making process can be eased or even eleminated by provided a clear and rich "reinforcement environment" which takes advantage of the sociological factors present in such a complex and communal process.
The central task of the change agent who chooses to adopt reinforcement techniques (aimed at encouraging group involvement and individual relaxation and appropriate rewards) is that of redesigning the reinforcement environment of the organization. The assumption is made that if the reinforcement enviroment can be clarified, enriched, and brought into congruence with the goals and objectives of the organization, desirable changes in the organizational behavior are likely to follow. (March 1994: Chapter 2)
In other words, this reinforcing approach enables the employee to feel more comfortable with his input into the group decision, and to expect appropriate rewards for contributions to the decision, without receiving any sort of disadvantage if his/her input does not prove extraordinary.
I would like to suggest specific ways in which the leader of the group decision-making process -- the principal - - - can encourage helpful participation in the process by the teachers. First, the successful decision making group is always marked by the presence of open, honest, and innovative communitication between the teachers. If teachers are merely herded into a room and informed by the school administrators of the result of a decision-making process in which those teachers did not participate in, those teachers will not only be alienated from the process but from the school-organization entirely. They will be bored, have low morale, and will feel inferior to the authoritarian school administrators.
A second type of meeting - - - in between the authoritarian principal-run meeting and the completley open meeting - - - involves participation by the teachers but it is more structured and and limiting than the third type. In the second type of decision-making meeting the teachers are invited to join in the process but they must have their thoughts planned-out in advance and little spontaneous participation is called for.
In the third meeting - - - the one with the most potential risks and the most potential rewards - - - the principal must be skilled in chairing a group where conflicting views are encouraged for the sake of a more comprehensive process and decision.
In this third type of meeting full participation by everyone in the room often brings ne and better thinking. And since participation i so broad, acceptance of conclusions is also greater. The principal involves everyone but controls discussion, keeping the meeting on the subject. (Huber 1980: 143-144)
The principal's role, then, is to involve, to monitor and stimulate discussion, to summarize but not to otherwise participate until it is clear that everyone present has had his or her full say on the matter at hand. Consensus is not important, but discussion and innovative, purposeful thinking are (Allison 1999: 287-289).
Meetings should be set in advance do that teachers have a chance to plan for them and to reschedule their work to fit in with the meeting. The principal lets the teachers know the subjects to be discussed and suggest that they prepare for participation. The meeting should result in some action being taken, an action that is spelled out clearly and sent in memo form to those who attend.
How Decisions are Made
What then can we say of the specific types of group decision-making models? Due to the importance of the group decision-making process, decision-making models can be used to establish a systematic means of developing effective group decision making. From the readings, in general, four group decision-making models can be identified each possessing distinct advantages and disadvantages. These four models are the rational, political, process, and garbage can models.
In order to determine the appropriate use of a group decision-making model, the advantages and disadvantages of using a model should be discussed. The advantage of using a model is that it helps to enhance understanding (Huber 1980). More specifically, a model assists in identifying the functioning of a group. It lends structure to a procedure that is dynamic and conceptual. By lending structure, it facilitates the identification and resolution of problems that can arise during the course and as a consequence of the decision-making process. This facilitation in turn can assist in improving the group decision-making process.
The potential disadvantage or pitfall to be aware of when using a model is that of being trapped by it (Burke, 1994 S, M). Using one particular model should not preclude the consideration of other models or other means of assessing group decision making. If a model is strictly adhered to without being open to other potential ideas, valuable information may be missed due to blatant disregard or misclassification of the information. Therefore, this limitation should be kept in mind in utilizing a group decision-making model.
The Rational Model
The first model is the rational model. This model is based upon an economic view of decision making. It is grounded on goals/objectives, alternatives, consequences and optimality. The model assumes that complete information regarding the decision to be made is available and one correct conception of a problem, or decision to be made can be determined. The model further assumes that the decision-makers consistently assess the advantages and disadvantages of any alternatives with goals and objectives in mind. They then evaluate the consequences of selecting or not selecting each alternative. The alternative that provides the maximum utility (i.e., the optimal choice) will be selected. The rational model is the baseline against which other models are compared (Allison, 1971; Huber 1980; March 1994).
An example of a scenario using a rational model is an executive group of a company trying to determine which consulting firm to hire in order to implement a business process reengineering (BPR) effort. The executive group's goal or objective is to become a leader in its industry, and it determines that the best way to accomplish this objective is through re-engineering. Numerous management consulting firms offer BPR services. Each firm's BPR approach has advantages and disadvantages. The executive group must evaluate each firm's approach by considering how the firm will enable the company to meet its objective. Based upon this evaluation, the group selects the consulting firm that provides the best means for the company to become a leader in its industry.
The most salient advantage of the rational model is that it utilizes a logical, sequential approach. Decisions are made deductively by determining the goals or objectives to be obtained, evaluating the potential alternatives based on the information at hand and choosing the optimal alternative. In other words, the model is simple and intuitive in nature.
The rational model does possess a salient disadvantage. The model assumes that there are no intrinsic biases to the decision-making process (Lyles & Thomas, 1988). This optimism may not be totally realistic, since individuals involved in the process bring their own perceptions and mental models into such a situation. Therefore, it seems that intrinsic biases are inevitable and something that should be addressed.
The Political Model
The second basic decision-making model considers the preconceived notions that decision-makers bring to the table in the decision process. This model is the political model. In contrast to the preceding model, the individuals involved do not accomplish the decision task through rational choice in regard to objectives. The decision makers are motivated by and act on their own needs and perceptions. This process involves a cycle of bargaining among the decision makers in order for each one to try to get his or her perspective to be the one of choice. More specifically, this process involves each decision-maker trying to sway powerful people within the situation to adopt his or her viewpoint and influence the remaining decision-makers (Allison 1971; Jeffrey Pfeffer 1981).
Furthermore, the political model does not involve making full information available or a focus on the optimal viewpoint like that of the rational model (Lyles & Thomas, 1988). Full information is highly unlikely, since the political model operates based upon negotiation that is often influenced by power and favors. In fact, information is often withheld in order to better maneuver a given perspective. Since information is often withheld and subsequently incomplete, the optimal viewpoint is not a key aspect of this model.
An illustration of the political model in action is a decision to hire a new manager for the Purchasing Department of a company. A group composed of the Human Resources (HR) Manager, staff members of the Purchasing Department, and the Director of Operations (i.e., whose division oversees the Purchasing Department) must make the decision among three candidates for the position. Each member has his or her own needs and reasons for endorsing certain job candidates.
The HR Manager is trying to fit the best person to the job, but would not mind if this individual has an innate liking for and understanding of human resources. This appreciation of HR would help decrease the cycle time of placing and receiving orders for necessities. The HR Manager would like to hire the first candidate. The Purchasing staff is also trying to find the best person for the position, but would prefer someone who does not micro-manage like their previous boss. The Purchasing staff would like to hire the second candidate. The Director of Operations also desires to find the best person for the job, but the Director would prefer an individual who unlike the previous Purchasing Manager is not overbearing and skeptical of the Director's decisions. The Director would like to hire the third candidate.
Since the group members have different agendas, they need to negotiate with each other and present their cases to the Director of Operations who has the final say in the decision. In the end, the Director understands the argument of the Purchasing staff and decides that the second candidate's hands-off approach would meet his needs as well. Therefore, the second candidate is hired.
The advantages of the political model remains that it provides a representation of the subjective manner in which the real world often operates, and it can minimize conflict. Individuals will always have their personal biases and agendas that influence their behavior. By identifying or acknowledging this fact in the decision-making process, potential problems and conflict can be foreseen and minimized. Conflict is also minimized by the swaying of powerful people to support a particular viewpoint. Once the powerful people support this perspective, other group members usually fall in line behind them.
While the political model has the advantage of emulating the way the real world operates (i.e., a cycle of bargaining related to personal agendas), this fact is also a disadvantage, because the best solution or decision may not be selected. Furthermore, the nature of bargaining and maneuvering (e.g., withholding information and social pressure) can produce effects that are long-lasting and detrimental. Once they discover it, the individuals involved in the decision may not appreciate the duplicity inherent in the process.
The Process Model
In contrast to the political model, the third basic model of decision making is more structured. This model is the process model. With the process model, decisions are made based upon standard operating procedures, or pre-established guidelines within the organization. Actions and behaviors occur in accordance with these procedures or guidelines (Allison 1999; March 1980).
Additionally, the organization of past, present, and future events, as well as conformity, are integral parts to this model (Allison 1971; March 1980). The organization of the past, present and future events are important, because they can be used as a consistent foundation for decision making. Considering these time events provides further refinement of the guidelines that help to determine outcomes.
Conformity is an integral part of the process model since it is the means by which doubt, or incertitude is dealt with during the decision task. If decision makers are uncertain as to the potential effectiveness or the results of a decision, they conform to the pre-established standard. This conformity should not be construed to mean that the decision will not have a solid foundation. In this case, conformity merely relates to the fact that the reasoning for the decision is based upon pre-determined guidelines (Ryan K. Lahti 1996).
An example of a scenario involving the process model of decision making is promoting a Marketing Representative of a company to a higher level. A group comprised of the Marketing Manager, HR Manager, and Compensation and Benefits Manager meet to discuss the promotion. Since the Marketing Manager has seen exemplary work from the representative, the Marketing Manager adamantly wants to promote the individual from a Marketing Representative I to a Marketing Representative III. In their negotiation, the HR Manager and Compensation and Benefits Manager point out to the Marketing Manager that company policy mandates that an employee can only be promoted one level at a time. Additionally, no precedent has been set to justify deviation from this policy. Therefore, the Marketing Representative is promoted to Marketing Representative II.
The Garbage Can Model
The fourth model of decision making is the garbage can model. This model is most appropriate for judgment tasks in organizations where the technologies are not clear, the involvement of participants fluctuates in the amount of time and effort given, and choices are inconsistent and not well defined (Cohen, March & Olsen 1972).
In such an organization, an opportunity to make a decision is described as a garbage can into which many types of problems and solutions are dropped independently of each other by decision-makers as these problems and solutions are generated. The problems, solutions and decision makers are not necessarily related to each other. They move from one decision opportunity to another in such a manner that the solutions, the time needed and the problems seem to rely on a chance alignment of components to complete the decision. These components are the combination of options available at a given time, the combination of problems, the combination of solutions needing problems, and the external demands on the decision makers (Cohen, March & Olsen 1972).
An example of the garbage can model is a company department trying to deplete its budget before the end of the fiscal year. This department, consisting of five employees, has additional money in its budget to use up by the end of the fiscal year. The employees do not want to lose the money. So, they create a bogus allocation in order to protect it, but really have no use for it.
Two weeks after the end of the fiscal year, the department's computer system goes down. Fortunately, the solution (the money from the budget to replace the computer system), the problem (inoperable computer system) and the individuals involved (the employees) are in alignment. In other words, the timing is perfect for the combination of components to solve this problem: The employees protected budget money which could be used at a later time, the computer system went down, and the protected money could be used to buy a new computer system.
The notable advantage of the garbage can model is that it provides a real-world representation of the non-rational manner in which decisions are often made within an organization. Not all decisions are made in a logical, political, or even standard fashion. Occasionally, decisions are made on an ad hoc basis or by "flying by the seat of the pants" when the solutions, problems and individuals involved in the task happen to align.
Despite its representation of the non-rational, real-world manner in which decisions are often made, the garbage can model does have an important disadvantage. It is not the most efficient means of making a decision. Decision making is considered a procedure for finding solutions to problems. Unfortunately, this often does not happen if the garbage can model represents the manner in which decisions are made within an organization. Problems are worked on in given situations, but choices are made only when the combination of problems, solutions and individuals allow the decision to happen (i.e., are in alignment).
Consequently, the alignment of the problems, solutions, and individuals often occurs after the opportunity to make a decision regarding a problem has passed or occurs even before the problem has been discovered (Cohen, March & Olsen, 1972).
In discussing the four general models, the issue is not necessarily which model is the best one, because they all have advantages and disadvantages which may work or be appropriate for certain groups and situations. The purpose of using models to assess group decision making is to provide a base for comparison. A model is a starting point for evaluating a process, and group decision making is a process.
One way of evaluating this process is to determine which model, if any, a group is using to make decisions. Once the model is determined, the decision procedure can be analyzed in order to facilitate the improvement of the procedure. The procedure can be improved by anticipating potential problems and acting accordingly.
For instance, time wasted due to a lack of direction and organization can be eliminated. Knowing that a group makes decisions by following a rational model enables the decision makers to expedite the decision process. These individuals can expedite the process by preparing themselves for group meetings by becoming familiar with any goals or objectives, possible alternatives and consequences of these alternatives as well as potential optimal choices as they relate to a decision.
The knowledge that a group follows a political model in making decisions is also helpful. This knowledge can assist group members in preparing the supporting information for their perspective. This preparation can assist the individuals in presenting their viewpoint more persuasively. Consequently, their viewpoint has a better chance of being adopted as the one of choice.
Knowing that a group utilizes a process model for making decisions can also increase the effectiveness of the decision procedure. Being aware that judgments are made relative to standard operating procedures enables individuals to anticipate potential obstacles to a decision. Consequently, these individuals can research the pre-established guidelines that may pose these problems and adjust their argument or point of view accordingly.
If group members are aware that decisions are made by using a garbage can model, they at least have the comfort of knowing that these decisions follow some sort of method. Granted the method is somewhat random and chaotic, but it is a method nonetheless.
Moreover, identifying the model when the decision process does not function effectively is of value, because the decision makers then know the method to avoid. They should avoid the current model that produced the ineffective results. This avoidance can be accomplished by agreeing as a group to try to adopt a different approach (i.e., a new model).
It should be pointed out that even if the group decision-making procedure does not fit one of the aforementioned general models, the process of analyzing the decision task in and of itself in order to identify a model is beneficial. This analysis provides valuable insight into the dynamics of how decisions are made within the group whether or not one of the four models is actually discovered. The cognitive flow of the group is important to note, because it enables an understanding of the other group members' rationale for judgment. Furthermore, this cognitive flow may spawn the creation of a novel group decision-making model.
In conclusion, models of group decision making can be helpful. They are not cure-alls for faulty decision procedures. They are merely a starting point for potential improvement. Models aid in assessing the interaction of group members regarding a judgment procedure. Group decision making models provide form to an intangible and abstract concept.
Despite the fact that negative factors such as groupthink and subconscious collaboration endanger the expanded decision-making process, Allison, Huber, March, and other authors such as Peter F. Drucker (Managing in Turbulent Times) emphasize the point that a spreading out of the responsibility for decisions prevents an imbalanced individual identification by a few corporate leaders between corporate policy and personal morality. In other words, the more people there are sharing the decision-making, the less likely that there will develop totalitarian personalities at the top of the organization who believe that “what is good for the corporation is good, period.” The fact is that in the giant corporations such personalities do indeed dominate decision-making, and until more lower-ranking employees are included in the process those few elite leaders will continue, with great danger to be threatened environment and its denizens, to identify the corporation’s profits with the good of the world and its people (Margolis 1979: 138-139).
Drucker notes that such decision-sharing in the organization will in the future prove not only beneficial but inevitable, as the “power follows property” maxim deepens employee participation in every level of corporate life. Employees in the distant past - - - slaves, serfs, indentured servants, etc. - - - were completely dependent on their employers. Employees today are much more powerful economically, academically, and because of that increaded powere they seek more and more to utilize it. Drucker writes that “If the employee - - owner (particularly if what is owned is parto f the corporation) can be integrated into the power process and mobilized to support the enterprise, management will again have a ground of legitimacy. It (management as an expanded entity) will again have a power base. There will again be a constituency for the producer interest in society, in the employee for whose benefit business is mainly run in his dual capacity as holder of a job and as ‘beneficial owner.’ But this can not happen automatically. It requires the employees, both as owners of society’s capital and as possessors of society’s knowledge, be endowed with responsibility (Drucker 1980: 191-192).”
Carol Weiss examined the in depth specific aspects of the expansion of decision-making processes in organizations. Weiss spent a consider time pointing out despite advances in the sharing of decision-making the bulk of schools continue to keep responsibility in the nds of an elite few. In fact, as schools grow the likely result is an increased inhibition of teacher participation.
All the course readings emphasize the advantages of expanded decision-making in most organizations, both for the company itself and for its employees. I bemoan the fact that such programs remain a rarity in today’s schools.
Advantages of Group Decision Making
A group solving problems together will provide participants with a baseline of common understanding and information that cannot be replicated in a memo or through less personal means. Such involvement results in a greater sympathy toward the complexities of the problem, and sets the groundwork for the group's acceptance of the eventual solution. Effective communication, understanding of and the eventual acceptance of a solution are closely related to one another, and group decision making enhances this interrelationship (Huber 1994: 143-146).
Another advantage of group decision making is that individuals come into a problem solving situation with personal biases, needs and perspectives. A group setting offers an environment which legitimizes a variety of viewpoints. Usually, provided that good information is provided in an intelligent manner and a climate exists in which individuals are not compelled to defend their positions, a group will move toward the best ideas (Huber 1980).
A good experience in a group can generate enthusiasm and can be contagious, thus enhancing the morale of all group members. The commitment toward eventual action can come out of this teamwork, as well as from the building of alternatives and even through the discussions that are associated with group decision making. Individuals have the opportunity to enhance their self-esteem through their contribution and relationship to the group. Similarly, the give-and-take discussion in a group can bring about new ideas that may not have been thought of by an individual acting alone. Different from the formal presentation of new ideas in a group setting, open discussion encourages members to be irreverent, to question precedent and to challenge the way that the company has historically performed tasks.
Perhaps the greatest advantage of group decision making is the inherent recognition in the process that problem solving is a multidimensional process that can involve large number of people. The more involvement that individuals have during this potentially impersonal process, the greater the likelihood that the decision will be successfully accepted and implemented (Huber 1980).
Conclusion
There are five phases to the decision making process; while some of these steps might overlap in simple decisions, none can be overlooked without compromising the entire process. It is the principal's role to guide the decision making process and to determine whether it is appropriate to make the decision on his own, or with outside input. The principal also needs to take into account the implementation of the eventual decision; such implementation plans should be part of the decision making process and influence the chosen alternative.
An increased use of work groups and work teams has led to an increased awareness of group decision making. Groups do not eliminate the need for principals, but principals in groups are usually facilitators who ensure that each member is able and permitted to contribute to the group. Even in highly participatory environments, there are some decisions which cannot be delegated to the group process; in these situations, the principal is responsible for making decisions independent of the group. In many situations, however, it is entirely appropriate and even desirable for the group to make decisions. The benefits of group decision making include better acceptance (and implementation) of the decisions, better decisions through enhanced creativity, and an overall cohesiveness that is difficult to achieve when decisions are made independently.
Peter Drucker provides us with comments appropriate for our conclusion. He stresses the point that decision-sharing among employees will not only benefit those employees and their organization but it is counterproductive to resist such expansion of responsibilities. Management’s job, says Drucker, is to make human strength productive and the “shift to the worker of knowledge and the steady upgrading of competence in the working force represent a very large, almost unprecedented increase in the potential of human strength in developed countries. It is, in fact, what makes the ‘developed.’ Yet by and large managements in developed countries have not taken the initiative in converting this potential of strength into the actual of responsibility, of citizenship (Drucker 1980: 192).” Drucker by citizenship means democratic participation in the organization.
Drucker finally notes that as the “turbulent times” intensify, organizations will be forced to take advantage of the intelligence and creativity of their employees, if those organizations wish to survive those rough times. Specifically, the teacher on all levels needs to be given genuine responsibility for the affairs of the school. He/She must be held responsible for setting the goals for his/her own work and for managing himself by objectives and selfcontrol. He/She must be held responsible for the constant improvement of the entire operation. He/She must share responsibility in thinking through and setting the school’s goals and objectives, and in making the school’s decisions.
References
References
Allison, David et. al. Decision Making in a Changing World. Princeton/New York, Auerbach, 1971, 1977.
Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Drucker, Peter. Managing in Turbulent Times. New York: Harper & Row, 1980.
Margolis, Diane Rothbard. Management and Organization. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1979.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 1-25.
