This paper examines three distinct decision-making models as applied by real organizations. It analyzes the Six-Step Decision-Making Model used by the City of Miami, a rational and utilitarian framework suited to public policy trade-offs. It then contrasts this with the brainstorming approach employed by commercial real estate firm Grubb & Ellis, which prioritizes creative idea generation. Finally, it considers the doctrinal, top-down model used by the U.S. Army, which emphasizes hierarchy and speed. Each model's strengths and weaknesses are evaluated in the context of the organization that uses it.
The paper demonstrates applied comparative analysis: it introduces a theoretical framework (a decision-making model), pairs it with an appropriate organizational case, and then evaluates the fit between theory and practice. This structure — model, example, critique — is repeated across all three sections, giving the paper logical coherence and showing how abstract management concepts translate into real organizational behavior.
The paper opens with a brief framing introduction, then devotes one section each to three decision-making models. Each section follows the same internal pattern: describe the model, illustrate it with an organizational example, and assess its limitations. The conclusion is implicit rather than explicit — the final section on the U.S. Army ends with a critical observation that serves as a closing insight.
Organizations across the public and private sectors rely on distinct decision-making models that reflect their cultures, structures, and operational demands. This paper examines three such models — the Six-Step rational model, the brainstorming approach, and the doctrinal top-down model — by analyzing how each is applied in a real organizational context: the City of Miami, Grubb & Ellis, and the U.S. Army, respectively. Each model carries distinct strengths and weaknesses that become apparent when evaluated against the environment in which it is used.
The Six-Step Decision-Making Model is a rational, largely utilitarian framework for reaching decisions. It emphasizes rationality and the need to define the situation correctly, after which it is theoretically straightforward to select the best available alternative. The City of Miami makes use of this model. It is easy to see why a public policy organization would find it useful: quite often, a government body must choose between several options that will inevitably cause hardship to some group, regardless of which option is selected.
Consider the decision frequently posed in government: should we cut social services or raise taxes? According to the Six-Step Model, the process unfolds as follows:
1. The decision-maker — in this case, the city government — defines the situation and the desired outcome (for example, there is a budget shortfall, but the city must minimize the impact on residents). 2. The city researches and identifies options (cutting services deemed non-critical, combined with raising taxes on certain groups). 3. The impact on affected communities is assessed for each proposed package of cuts and tax increases. 4. The city then makes a decision between the different proposals. 5. The chosen plan is implemented. 6. To provide guidance for the future, the city evaluates and tracks the results.
Ideally, one might argue this is how all decisions should be made. However, there are notable problems with the clean, linear nature of the Six-Step Model. First, it tends to minimize complex ethical considerations — ethics become just one of many equally weighted factors. Theoretically, everything remains "on the table" throughout the process until a final decision is reached. Second, the real world of public administration often involves personalities competing for influence alongside purely rational deliberation. Ignoring this reality can limit the model's practical usefulness.
In contrast to the City of Miami, Grubb & Ellis, a commercial real estate advisory firm, uses the brainstorming method of decision-making. A creative business such as Grubb & Ellis clearly believes it benefits from a model that encourages a free exchange of ideas. In this approach, individuals write down — collectively or individually — every idea that comes to mind, good or bad, without censorship. Quite often, unique and unconventional solutions emerge through this method, and even seemingly far-fetched ideas can eventually germinate practical outcomes.
The primary limitation of the brainstorming model is that, because it is so democratic, an organization can become bogged down debating a wide array of alternatives when a quick decision is required. Eventually, a solution must be reached, and the organization may find itself forced to shift to a more structured rational model — such as the Six-Step Method — to select the best alternative, or the organizational leader must step in and make an authoritative choice.
Each of the three models examined here reflects the specific needs and culture of the organization that employs it. The Six-Step Model suits the structured accountability demands of public government; brainstorming fits a creative, advisory business environment; and the doctrinal model serves the speed and hierarchy requirements of military operations. Understanding where each model excels — and where it falls short — is essential for any organization seeking to improve the quality of its decisions.
You’re 83% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.