Organizations & Decision-Making: Thematic Literature Review

Running head: ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 1

Organizations and Decision-Making

Thematic Literature Review

Charmaine Barton

Athabasca University

ORGANIZATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING 2

Organizations and Decision Making

Thematic Literature Review

As a student of “governance,” I have always been interested in why some researchers

believe that private organizations (businesses) are better run than governments or their ministries

or departments. Are private companies’ better organizations? Using texts on “organization,” and

one text on indigenous people, I have completed a literature review and come across four

themes:

Organizations are complex (p. 3);

Decision-making is an “it depends” activity influenced by three factors (p. 4):

o The range of perspectives available for use by a decision-maker (p. 6);

o The personal experiences of the decision-maker (p. 8); and,

o The situation itself (p. 9).

There needs to be a balance in decision-making (p. 11);

Because there is “no one true way” to organize or make a decision (p. 13).

Therefore, private organizations face many of the same challenges as governmental

organizations1 where the structure is complex and all decisions “depend” upon the politics of the

government-of-the-day, the values and ethics (perspectives) of the decision-makers, and the

situations under consideration. Governmental decisions attempt to balance the monetary cost

with the intangible benefit of “public good.” As will be seen, there is no real difference, or one

true way to organize, when comparing private and public organizations.

1 This paper will not be making any explicit references to “governance” literature that was accessed during GOVN500, GOVN505, GOVN540, or MAIS612. My study of governance literature has led to this self-designed reading course on “organization” to see if there is or is not a substantive difference between public and private organizations. Only “organization” literature will be cited.


Organizations are Complex

Many people look at organizations, such as their government and Sears, and do not believe

that such institutions have anything in common except the “desire” to relieve you of your money

through taxes or through over-priced items to make corporate profit. However, this is not a valid

observation, because many people do not understand the concept of “organization,” as an

institution.

It must be understood that what is observed may not be true (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 42) because

the basic idea of organization is premised on making the complex simple enough to understand

and research (Morgan, 2006, p. 220). Organizations are socially constructed realities (May &

Mumby, 2005, p. 180; Morgan, 2006, p. 116); they are a process of human imagination (Morgan,

2006, p. 365) that cannot be taken as a “given” fact of life (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 199)

because organizations are created to achieve a goal (Daft, 2013, p 14) which must be

“accomplished” (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 199). Institutions are “vague, ambiguous, and

amorphous” (Daft, 2013, p. 12), which exist to serve human needs (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.

117), are gendered (Buzzanell, 2000), and mean different things to different people (May &

Mumby, 2005, p. 187).

Organizations are a single element in a complex system (Morgan, 2006, p. 62) where the

intricate relationship between organization and humans (Morgan, 2006, p. 34) is further

complicated by power and influence (Pfeffer, 1992), communication (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p

24), discourse (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 7), and the self-identification of the organization and its

human members (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 59). Thus, researching and understanding is difficult


when organizations are deemed “complex, surprising, deceptive, and ambiguous” (Bolman &

Deal, 2013, p 39). As Morgan (2006) says “organizations are many things at once” (p. 337)!

Regarding organizational decision-making, all of the literature authors agree that

organizations are not neutral and rational actors in decision-making because rationality is

politically motivated (Pfeffer, 1992) by the self-interest of the humans making the decisions

(Morgan, 2006, p. 203). Thus, some people believe that all decisions should be left to machines

and computers (Morgan, 2006, p. 27). However, this is not an option in a globalized world where

the boundaries between industries, sectors, cultures, and public/private life are blurring (Daft,

2013, p. 14) and becoming more complex.

Decision-making is an “it depends” activity

Remembering that rationality is political (Pfeffer, 1992) and interest based (Morgan, 2006,

p. 203), “what is rational from one organizational standpoint may be catastrophic from another”

(Morgan, 2006, p. 330). Thus, decision-making can make or break an organization. However,

decision-making is not an easy activity.

The most common means of organizational decision-making is the “meeting agenda.”

Agendas show the sequence in which decisions will be made (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 210;

Pfeffer, 1992, 240). One normally assumes that the most urgent or important decisions would be

listed first; however, agendas can be politically motivated, depending upon who finalizes the

order (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 15).

One cannot observe an organization or its decision-making model from a safe, neutral, and

external position (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 239; May & Mumby, 2005, p. 28; Morgan, 2006, p. 245).

As well, organizational decisions are not made in “splendid solitude” (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 207)


cocooned from external influences or environments (Morgan, 2006, p. 217). Further, what is

observed is more like a “snapshot” (Morgan, 2006, p. 146) that can be “framed” in many ways

(Bolman & Deal, 2013).

Effective organizations depend upon having a wide range of choices and options (Morgan,

2006, p. 250) conditional upon the goal of the decision. But organizations are subjected to the

same “fads and fashions” as society at large is (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 39; Daft, 2013, p. 204).

One of the most insidious “fads,” in 2016, that affects organizations and their decision-making

models is that of “immediate gratification.” Society believes that there can be, and should be,

instantaneous decision-making on any and all issues (Morgan, 2006, p. 312) due to the ease of

access to knowledge information via smartphones. Therefore, people believe that “fixing” the

educational system should be instantaneous; even though there is no consensus on how to fix it

(Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 235). Organizations who do not see immediate visible “returns” on

human capital investment therefore they do not invest the second time (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.

139). Thus, the inability to “get things done” (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 7) in a timely manner (Morgan,

2006, p. 28) is blamed on a specific decision-maker, the system, or a general thirst-for-power

(Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 25-31). Yet, it is normally not a lack of technology, consensus, or

knowledge-data that impedes decision-making; instead it is the lack of (political) will by

organizational decision-makers (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 4).

Organizations, large and small, are starting to recognize and understand that the lines are

blurring between industries, sectors, and public/private life (Daft, 2013, p. 14). Thus, a way must

be found to bring the different parties together (Morgan, 2006, p. 117), with focused attention

(Pfeffer, 1992, p. 30), so that timely decisions (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 227) can be made on issues

(Buzzanell, 2000, p. 138; Daft, 2013, p. 443; May & Mumby, 2005, p. 174; Morgan, 2006, p.


255), for the “common good.” Organizations and societies are also starting to recognize that the

safe, neutral, splendid solitude (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 207) of the past is gone and that decision-

making is influenced by three factors: multiple theories, perspectives, images, and frames; the

past personal experiences of the decision-makers; and, that each situation is different. Thus, the

decision-making process can now best be described as an “it depends” activity.

Multiple theories and perspectives on decision-making

One of the first acts in the decision-making process is to try and make sense of what is

going on in a very complex situation. However, “it is not a single frame activity” (Bolman &

Deal, 2013, p. 303). There are multiple theories and perspectives in the selected literature that

can be used by decision-makers, which “adds up to a simple truth that is easy to overlook. The

world we perceive is, for the most part, constructed internally” (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 36).

There are no right or wrong theories or perspectives when assessing the situation

surrounding a decision. All theories and perspectives illuminate and hide aspects of the situation

(Morgan, 2006, p. 8). Some people use metaphors and images (Morgan, 2006); others use

“frames” to enclose the area of inquiry (Bolman & Deal, 2013); while others use a biological

life-cycle to design an organization (Daft, 2013); others love or hate to talk about power and

politics (Pfeffer, 1992); third wave feminists discuss who is not included in the “conversation”

(Buzzanell, 2000); and some researchers practice what they preach about organizational

communications (May & Mumby, 2005); and finally, indigenous peoples have their own views

of how things should get done (Niezen, 2003).These theories and perspectives seem

overwhelming, however, “there is simply not much competition between these different

perspectives [and theories]; they are useful for different purposes” (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 30).


In “managing diversity” (Daft, 2013, p. 11) one can use the various perspectives achieve

this ill-defined goal. If “organizations [are] cultures, we can see almost every aspect in a new

way” (Morgan, 2006, p. 140). Various questions can be asked about the diversity goal. Does this

organization prize written stories over oral stories (Niezen, 2003, p. 97)? Does the manager

prefer to promote the “generalized other” (commonalities) or the “concrete other” (differences)

within the organization (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 33-34)? Is group membership based upon a choice

or is it based on birth (Niezen, 2003, p. 13)? When using different perspectives, one quickly

“realiz[es] that there lots of ways of being ‘other’” (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 87).

Using the political frame (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 183-242), what is deemed rational or

ridiculous is dependent on who explains the situation (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 190). One needs to know

how “the game [is] being played, the players, and what their positions are” (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 30).

Questions are needed to define “the game.” Are all players involved represented in the decision-

making process or are some being excluded (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 63)? Is the manager more

concerned with collective rights or with individual rights (Niezen, 2003, p. 18-20)? It must be

noted that many people would prefer to have “politics” removed from the workplace, however,

“this is unrealistic so long as politics is inseparable from social life” (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.

207-208).

With the understanding that many portions of life are inter-connected, an emerging trend

in organization theory is to use ‘hard’ science models to demonstrate the complexity of

institutions. For example, flux theory which “embod[ies] characteristics of both permanence and

change” (Morgan, 2006, p. 241) is assisting management in coping with constant need to adapt

to an ever changing external and internal environment. The persistent, feminist “glass-ceiling” is

now being explained using strange-attractor and order-out-of-chaos theories (Buzzanell, 2000, p.


236-256). Daft’s (2013) book is structured on a life-cycle systems model used in biology. While

some people may believe that ‘hard’ science models should be applied to human organizations

there is danger in doing so. Humans can think about themselves and change while atoms and

molecules cannot (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 238-246).

There are many other theories and perspectives available for use. But one must remember

that all theories and perspectives are partial (Morgan, 2006, p. 4) and value-laden, not value-free

(May & Mumby, 2005, p. 90). Every metaphor, image, or frame has strengths and limitations

(Bolman & Deal, 2013; Morgan, 2006) and that favoured ways of seeing a situation also become

ways of not seeing (Morgan, 2006, p. 209). Morgan (2006) and Bolman & Deal (2013) suggest

using multiple images and frames to better understand what is going on in a given situation.

Finally, one needs to remember that “the world looks different depending upon one’s social

location” (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 178) which is partially created by one’s lived-experiences.

Personal experiences and decision-making

Mangers and leaders normally use general knowledge to define a decision-making

situation, but, they most often base their decision on their most recent personal experiences

(Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 307). In our globalized world, some managers and leaders are left

scratching their heads because the “correct” decision in the USA does not work in Saudi Arabia

(Daft, 2013, p. 217). They appear to have forgotten that there is no homogenous society or

culture (Morgan, 2006, p. 125).

We eat different food (Daft, 2013, p. 236), have a variety of personal experiences

(Niezen, 2003, p. 57), and have grown up listening to different stories (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 253-

254; Niezen, 2003, p. 97). Personal experiences, as young black girls in the USA, have shaped


two academics and how they view and define their organizational decision-making (Buzzanell,

2000, p. 202; May & Mumby, 2005, p. 42). How one defines his/her identity has an impact on

one’s social location and on decision-making (Morgan, 2006, p. 260). Organizational

experiences impact one’s decision-making as well, because as one takes on new roles and moves

throughout the organization one has different experiences (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 176).

Many employees believe that decisions should be left to managers and leaders, who get

the big money, because they are smarter and more influential than the average worker (Pfeffer,

1992, p. 10). But they are only have influential because “leadership is conferred by followers”

(Pfeffer, 1992, p. 130; see also Buzzanell, 2000, p. 128-156). Managers and leaders, like

employees, “look to others for advice, information, and other resources” (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 101)

that are needed to get the job done. This advice and information influences the management

styles practiced around the world (Daft, 2013, p. 244; Morgan, 2006, p. 121-122), because each

society is different. Despite stereotypic conceptions of other cultures (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.

ix), most global managers know that if given the choice to influence your head or your heart,

they would pick your heart (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 279) because the personal is so powerful.

Situations and decision-making

One of the uses of multiple perspectives and theories in decision-making is to better

define the situation that the organization is facing because “people often have a myopic view of

what is occurring” (Morgan, 2006, p. 29). There is an “assumption that management theory and

practice are rational [but it] is not always realized” (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 133) because each

situation or event is different. Unexpected external environmental factors (Morgan, 2006, p. 39)

can have a huge impact on a company’s bottom line and or reputation. For example, in 2010 a


volcano eruption in Iceland grounded air traffic in and around Europe posing a critical threat to

DHLs bottom line and reputation.2 However, unlike the police and fire department response to

the 9/11 attacks (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 44), DHL had a co-ordinated “what if” contingency

plan that allowed them to deal with the ban on air travel with minimal effect to their bottom line

or reputation.

One situational dependent that is often overlooked is whether or not the organization

should or should not be making this decision period (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 66). Should a

government decide that a certain percentage of every company’s profit must be spent on “social

responsibility” projects? Should a company decide not to pay all of its federal taxes because it

does not like the government withdrawing airplanes from the Syrian conflict? Whether or not an

organization should be making a decision can be seen in the unique challenges of any given

situation (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 58). As well, because power relationships are always shifting

(Daft, 2013, p. 192), who is influential and powerful in any given decision-making process is

dependent on the task (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 77). Further, some who were previously influential may

find themselves excluded (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 65) because their sphere of influence is not

needed for this task (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 68).

Decision-making is also based on knowledge created by specific standpoint (personal

experience and social location) (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 12). Depending upon the integration and

interpretation of this knowledge a situation can be viewed as an opportunity or a challenge

(Morgan, 2006, p. 140). Competitors may collaborate today on obtaining scarce, natural

resources, while tomorrow they try to underbid each other to gain a contract; “frenemies” must

often be more knowledgeable of situational dependencies (Daft, 2013, p. 185). 2 See www.dpdhl.com/en/media_relations/abonnements/financial_media_newsletter/background_q1_2010.html for more details


Knowledge, and decision-making, can also be influenced by communication networks

shaped for a specific task (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 112). For example, a Sergeant carries out orders that

s/he has helped to shape through sharing his/her observations of the local culture, geography,

religion, and attitudes. The Sergeant passes this information up through the communication

network to the Commanding General, who passes down orders to the Sergeant (Daft, 2013, p.

106-107).

As situations change, a range of decision-making methods can be used (Bolman & Deal,

2013, p. 51), which in turn effects who has the power to be influential and effective (Pfeffer,

1992, p. 81). For example, indigenous peoples’ leaders agree that the United Nations is the best

place for the decision-making in recognizing their cultural and human rights (Niezen, 2003, p.

70). The Cree and Tuareg are more influential on “residential school systems,” while the Ainu

are more influential on rejecting “cultural assimilation” (Niezen, 2003).

Balance in Decision-Making

As can be seen from the above conversations, organizations are complex entities whose

decision-making process is best defined as an “it depends” activity that is influenced by multiple

perspectives, human experiences, and situational factors. As there is organizational uncertainty

(Daft, 2013, p. 203) and ambiguity (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 257) in every situation, how does any

decision get made? According to Daft (2013) all decisions are a balancing act (p. 79). Decisions

need to balance competing goals (Daft, 2013, p. 80), evolving priorities (Bolman & Deal, 2013,

p. 70), promote innovation while avoiding mistakes (Morgan, 2006, p. 263), within a “values and

ethics” framework (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 33). A decision-maker must balance what is rational with

what seems irrational (Morgan, 2006, p. 237) while searching for scarce resources (Bolman &


Deal, 2013, p. 214) against the backdrop of uncertainty and ambiguity (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 208). In

other words, “we must act without knowing for sure” (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 103). However,

uncertainty and ambiguity can be mitigated if one blends and uses multiple perspectives and

frames (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 306) as one comes to realize that “pattern and order emerge

from the [decision-making] process; it is not imposed” (Morgan, 2006, p. 73) upon the process.

Despite some spectacular blunders in management decision-making (Bolman & Deal,

2013, p. 44 and 185-187; Daft, 2013, p. 74) many successful decisions are made every day (Daft,

2013, p. 477). If one believes that organizations are created to meet human needs and decisions

lay out the path to achieving that goal, then the greatest “sin” a decision-maker can commit is to

do nothing (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 300). In the forum of rights and responsibilities (Niezen, 2003, p.

110), such as downsizing and mass lay-offs, a decision-maker must balance the needs of the

organization with and against the needs of employees (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 135; Buzzanell,

2000, p. 52). In such cases, and others, decision-makers need to remain emotionally stable

(Niezen, 2003, p. 63) to cope with competing interests on a daily basis (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 340).

Not all organizations are soul-sucking vampires nor are all workers fakers and scammers

(Morgan, 2006, p. 310). Yes, some companies have decided that paying life insurance policies is

cheaper than implementing safety reforms (Morgan, 2006, p. 306-309). Yet, some large multi-

national corporations, political forces without political accountability (Morgan, 2006, p. 321), are

trying to work with the normally excluded and silent voices (Buzzanell, 2000) of indigenous

peoples to balance resource extraction with the peoples’ connection to the land. Many

organizations are trying to reframe their politics to include a greater sense of (social)

responsibility (Morgan, 2006, p. 332).


No One True Way

In looking at the above themes, it is not surprising that all of the authors agree that there

is “no one true way” to organize and make decisions (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 60; Buzzanell,

2000, p. 24; Daft, 2013, p. 28; May & Mumby, 2005, p.8; Morgan, 2006, p. 5; Niezen, 2003, p.

122). Some researchers have become disenchanted with the search for and the promise of a

“grand unifying theory” (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 117). Researchers believe that organizations

must have some choice in their actions (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 89) otherwise there would be

nothing to select to better fit the situation (Morgan, 2006, p. 59). There is neither a McManager

(Morgan, 2006, p. 24) nor a McWorld (May & Mumby, 2005, p. 245).

As there is no perfect or ideal manager, there is no ideal organizational structure in real

life (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 60). Due to the turbulent times there is more differentiation

between organizations as more “species” evolve (Morgan, 2006, p. 51). Hard science is no

longer considered to lead to the “one true path” of knowledge production (May & Mumby, 2005,

p. 30). Despite the use of chaos-, complexity-, and self-organizing systems theory and their

emphasis on non-linear systems, like organizations (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 238), there is concern

about the reification of these models as they do not translate well to social systems involving

humans (Buzzanell, 2000p. 246).

As “organization ultimately resides in the heads of the people involved” (Morgan, 2006,

p. 145) “there is no universal design, no system of government [or organization] to which

humanity will or should conform” (Montesquieu quoted in Niezen, 2003, p. 122). How much

easier would it be if organization, as an institution, was a grand morality play, pre-scripted, and

the good guys and bad guys were easily told apart (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 343)? In the end, there can


be no central dogma or cant (Niezen, 2003, p. 13); no traditional binary thinking (Buzzanell,

2000, p. 11). The greatest decision-maker of all time is the human brain where decisions are “the

result of a … chaotic process where multiple processes … are generated as a result of activity

distributed throughout the brain. There is no master, centralized intelligence” (Morgan, 2006, p.

145)!

Conclusion

Through a selective literature review four themes have emerged about organizations and

decision-making: organizations are complex; decision-making is an “it depends” activity based

on (a) multiple perspectives, (b) personal experiences, and (c) the situation; decision-making

must be balanced; and that in the end there is no one true way to organize and make decisions.

These themes appear to cross-cut civil society sectoral boundaries, language, and culture. No

organization (public, private, or voluntary) should be held up as a “true” model to slavishly

follow. All organizations have strengths and limitations. An organization should have the

opportunity to find “best practices” from whichever sector or industry it feels best represents the

needs and desires of its human members.


References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership

(5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley brand.

Buzzanell, P. M. (2000). Rethinking organizational & managerial communication from feminist

perspectives. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Daft, R. L. (2013). Organization theory & design (11th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western

Cengage Learning.

May, S., & Mumby, D. K. (2005). Engaging organizational communication theory & research:

Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization (Updated ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Niezen, R. (2003). The origins of indigenism: Human rights and the politics of identity.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston, Mass.:

Harvard Business School Press.

Leadership & Management

Organizations & Decision-Making: Thematic Literature Review