AdHoc Instrumentalism and Rational Decision-Making Models
Thedecision-making model is one of the most important elements in anyorganization. It ensures the coordination between the top managementand employees is harmonious. Due to the vitality of the element,different models are utilized to make the decisions. The Ad HocInstrumentalism and Rational Decision-Making models are some of thecommonest examples. Administrators vastly utilize these modelsdepending on the situations. As such, in this paper, the differencebetween the models will be expounded. Additionally, it is crucial tocomprehend the different situations that suit the models.
AdHoc Instrumentalism and Rational Decision-Making Models
Arational decision-making model is a multi-step procedure that startswith problem identification to the solution, utilizing reasonablysound decisions. It entails selecting options between alternatives.It favors logic, analysis, and objectivity over insight andsubjectivity. The model follows a formal and sequential path ofactions that include the formation of objectives, establishing thecriteria for coming up with the decision, identifying alternatives,conducting analysis, and reaching the final determination. Afundamental assumption of this model is that individuals make choicesthat ensure maximum benefits at minimal costs. In the incrementalmethod, the entire requirement is divided into different builds. Theends and means of the decision are intertwined. As such, this paperwill compare the ad hoc incremental and rational decision-makingmodels. Additionally, examples will be utilized to illustrate thedifferences and similarities between the two models.
Comparisonof the Two Decision-making Models
TheRational Decision-making Approach
Inthis structure, the goals to be pursued are distinct. As such, allthe values to be attained must be specified. For instance, going tolaw school does not mean it is the ultimate goal. Instead, it is justa specific means of enabling the purpose of getting a job andsurviving. In this model, weights are put in place for each goal.This means one has to specify how vital the different goals areassociated with each other. Another element of this model is theexamination of all the probable means. After defining the goals, itis vital to examine all the possible ways of attaining them. Themeans are then assigned a score in relation to the goals and the waysof achieving the same. Then calculate each set of means and theoverall measure that is founded on the weighted mean of the marks onattaining the various goals. The means with the highest weightedscore is chosen as the most appropriate. As such, thisdecision-making model follows through several steps that are intendedto give the best outcomes [ CITATION Ste03 l 1033 ].
TheAd Hoc Incremental Decision-making Model
Themeans and goals are intertwined. In other words, the model is basedon the idea that individuals know their goals by considering andcontemplating on the means. Unlike the previous model, the ad hocincremental takes into consideration a few means. In other words, anon-comprehensive analysis is conducted due to lack of time andinformation among other resources. The approach assumes that anindividual needs to be time conscious. Only the means that do notdepart too much from the status quo are chosen. Assessment of meansis rather crude, thereby ignoring many consequences. This is becauseconducting a comprehensive analysis is impossible. Unlike therational decision, choices made come from the interested parties. Inother words, an agreement between the parties is enough to select aparticular means. Instead of using summary indicators emanating fromthe assessment, this approach depends solely on the parties involved.The agreement is considered as the only pragmatic virtue indicatorsince they are not normally clear-cut or collective [ CITATION Chr12 l 1033 ].
Agood example of ad hoc incremental concept can be typified bySullenberger’s decision to land the aircraft on the Hudson River.He had less than 208 seconds to make an appropriate decision.Carrying more than 150 passengers, it was the captain’sresponsibility to ensure a minimum loss in relation to thepassengers. He conducted a non-comprehensive analysis and establishedthat landing on the river was the most appropriate choice. He wasalso less aware of the consequences. The decision was reachedamicably as the other party involved accepted the same. The decisionturned out to be the most appropriate as all the passengers onboardsurvived [ CITATION Lin59 l 1033 ].
Eventhough the rational decision-making model seems to be the mostefficient for administrators, the ad hoc incremental concept isnecessary for some situations. In rational, an administrator conductsa comprehensive analysis and bases his/her decisions on the weightedscores. The chances of making errors are minimal due to the extensiveresearch and analysis. Nevertheless, it cannot be implemented where aquick decision is required. For instance, if Captain Sullenberger hadutilized the rational concept, perhaps he would not have survived.Maybe the process would have been too long to achieve the anticipatedoutcome [ CITATION New151 l 1033 ].
Inthe rational concept, an administrator ought to clarify the values,goals, or objectives as well as their importance. It is a lengthyprocedure that entails involvement of other persons. In other words,the administrator does not only consider his/her preferences.Instead, he/she must select an option that is more popular. On theother hand, the ad hoc increment means is more dependent on theultimate decision maker. Having too many alternatives may beconfusing to the decision maker. For example, after calculating themeans, the scores can be closely related to the extent of confusingthe decision maker. In such a scenario, the process is lengthy andtime-consuming. Being long and slow does not necessarily imply thatthe decision taken will be accurate [ CITATION Lin59 l 1033 ].
Theconsequences and costs of all the alternatives must be assessed andanalyzed. As such, involving too many decision makers may encouragepolitical influence. It is also worth noting that predicting thefuture is rather intricate. An administrator has the cognitiveability, resources, and time to assess all the alternatives againsteach other. A measurable criterion must also be utilized to collectand analyze the options [ CITATION Ste03 l 1033 ].
Thegovernment has jurisdictions over all the undertakings within a givencountry if it affects the citizens. For example, if a private citizenhas standing water on his/her land that encourages the breeding ofmosquitos, which spread the Zika virus, it is imperative for thegovernment to get involved. When a private citizen does somethingthat affects the public right, the government has the power to dealwith him/her. The most crucial role of the government is to protectits citizens. Protection must be in line with fairness. In thatregard, the administration ensures all the citizens’ rights areupheld. Any contravention of the same is punishable by law.Therefore, the government, in this case, can warn the private citizenand even punish him/her if the standing water continues to affect thepublic. While coming up with such a decision, the administration willutilize the rational concept. All the available option will bescrutinized to reach the appropriate decision [ CITATION Lin59 l 1033 ].
Therational and ad hoc incremental decision-making processes are vitalelements in any institution. They both involve systematic approachesthat strive to reach the best available choice. However, the twomodels are different regarding the process used to make the decision.While in rational the process is more comprehensive, the ad hocmechanism in non-comprehensive. The two methods also differ regardingthe time used to make the decision. However, similar results can beachieved due to the intricacy of predicting the future. In otherwords, an administrator can choose to use the rational approach, butyields similar results to the one utilizing the ad hoc incrementalconcept.
Chilton, S. (2003, February 18). Rationality Vs. "Muddling Through". Retrieved from http://www.d.umn.edu/~schilton/3221/LectureNotes/3221.RationalityVsMuddlingThrough.2003.Spring.html
Kindström, C. K. (2012). Service infusion as agile incrementalism in action. 1-34.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of "Muddling Through". Wiley.
Newsweek Special Edition . (2015, November 7). `Sully` Sullenberger Remembers the Miracle on the Hudson. Retrieved from http://europe.newsweek.com/miracle-hudson-330172?rm=eu