Organizational decision making theory

¶ … organizational decision making best explains decision making in an ideal-Typical Weberian bureaucracy?

In a classical Weberian bureaucracy, decisions are made in an impersonal manner. People mean very little, in terms of the functionality of the organization. Processes rather than people are important. In a classical Weberian model, even when the personnel within the bureaucratic structure might change, the organization would still remain equally efficient. Subordinates follow the directions of their superiors, but technical qualifications, rather than favoritism determines promotions. This could be called 'bounded rationality,' or rationally operating to achieve optimal outcomes within imposed constraints and the limited knowledge available.

'Following the rules' in a blind fashion can be disastrous, if the rules are not set up correctly. But in the Weberian model of rationality, given that the rules are rational, legal, "reliable and clear" this "allows the subordinate more independence and discretion" than would exist otherwise ("Bureaucracy (Weber)," Babson College, 2012). Subordinates have more power in bureaucracies than in other governing structures because they are not reliant upon currying favor with their bosses to get ahead, and "ideally can challenge the decisions of their leaders by referring to the stated rules -- charisma becomes less important. As a result, bureaucratic systems can handle more complex operations than traditional systems" ("Bureaucracy (Weber)," Babson College, 2012). Actions are deemed rational if they lead to value for the actor, and, in this case the 'actor' is deemed to be the organization as a whole. In Weber's rationalist model, actors within organizations are not presumed to have their own interests; rather they follow rules in a rational fashion to bring the intended process to an end.

Within the Weberian model, there is no allowance for limited rationality. For example, one common criticism of the security apparatus of the United States is that there are inherent conflicts of interest between the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and the State Department. While all entities ostensibly have the advancement of the United States at heart, the jurisdictions of both entities may be jealously guarded by different members of different bureaucracies. The FBI may not share information with the CIA department, due to rivalries of resources or a fear of losing jurisdiction. Also within the government, there may be conflicts between the FDA (which is in charge of promoting American's overall health and initiatives such as obesity reduction) and the Department of Agriculture (which is in charge of promoting the interests of American farmers and promoting consumption of American food products). Conflicts of interest, emotions, and the inability to see the full consequences of one's actions are taken into consideration in models of limited rationality, which are not admitted into the Weberian model. If rationality means correctly evaluating preferences, options, and outcomes, the influence of competing interests can create very different perceptions of what is rational.