Day 12: Decision-Making Theories – Rational Model, Incremental Model, Garbage Can Model

🟦 Why is decision-making in organizations so complex and unpredictable?

The proposition that organizations operate like living organisms is one of the central theses of many organizational and behavioral theories today. In the intersection of individual psychology, group dynamics, institutional constraints, and environmental uncertainty, public organizations must make decisions while coordinating various interests. The act of decision-making does not stop at being a simple procedural task but rather functions as a strategic choice that can determine the survival of the entire organization. To better understand such decisions, it is necessary to approach them through multiple theoretical perspectives.

Public administration and organizational behavior have continuously analyzed how humans make decisions within organizations. Decision-making theories, which began to develop in earnest in the mid-20th century, reflect the diverse attempts and philosophical perspectives of scholars seeking to bridge the gap between ideal rationality and practical constraints. In this process, the theories that have emerged most prominently are the Rational Model, the Incremental Model, and the Garbage Can Model.

The Rational Model assumes the traditional view of man in economics and political science: a rational man. It posits that goals are clear, all alternatives can be explored, the best information is available, and the optimal choice is made based on complete information. This model provides an ideal standard for the policy-making process and emphasizes systematic thinking and logical analysis, in line with administrative management approaches. However, criticisms arise pointing out that such “complete rationality” is difficult to realize in actual organizations.

As an alternative recognizing these practical constraints, the Incremental Model was proposed. The Incremental Model acknowledges that policy-makers cannot make perfect decisions under ideal conditions and instead make decisions by slightly modifying existing policies. Emphasizing the continuity of policy and limited exploration, this approach sets “satisfactory decisions” as a realistic goal and effectively explains the incremental changes often observed in public policy.

On the other hand, the Garbage Can Model is a theory that radically applies the assumption that organizations are highly complex and unpredictable. Proposed by Cohen, March, and Olsen, this model emphasizes that decision-making within organizations can occur in highly random and irrational ways. It argues that problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities exist independently and are combined randomly at certain moments, making this theory particularly applicable to highly fluid organizations characterized by “organized anarchy.”

These three models illuminate the nature of decision-making and its complexity from different angles. The Rational Model suggests an ideal standard, the Incremental Model emphasizes practical applicability, and the Garbage Can Model explains organizational behavior in unstructured situations. Each theory offers greater understanding when connected with real-world examples in public administration, and their applicability differs depending on the organizational environment and the type of problem.

Therefore, this article will focus on these three theories to compare and analyze the logic and reality of organizational decision-making, and to examine the insights each theory provides. Decision-making theory is not confined to a single field of public administration but integrates with public policy, management strategy, social psychology, and many other disciplines, expanding its scope of application. Decision-making in public organizations is the process of seeking better choices in situations where no clear answer exists, and understanding that process becomes the key to understanding both organizations and society.

🟩 The development and practical application of decision-making theories

1. Rational Model – The ideal of logical choice

⬛ Definition and core assumptions

The Rational Model is the most traditional approach to explaining organizational decision-making logically and systematically. It is based on the assumption of the economic man (Homo Economicus), and assumes that all decision-makers follow these premises:

Goals are clearly defined.
All possible alternatives can be explored and compared.
Complete information about each alternative is available.
Outcomes are evaluated based on consistent value criteria.
Ultimately, the “best” alternative is chosen.

This assumption is rooted in the classical theories of economics, public administration, and political science, which model the “ideal man.” Notably, Herbert A. Simon criticized this Rational Model and highlighted its limitations in reality.

⬛ Herbert Simon and bounded rationality

Simon argued that decision-makers make decisions under constraints of information, time, and cognitive ability. He called this bounded rationality, asserting that in reality, people choose satisfactory alternatives (satisficing) rather than optimal ones. He described the decision-making process as follows:

Recognizing the problem
Searching for alternatives
Evaluating alternatives
Choosing a satisfactory alternative

This practical approach limits exploration and chooses the first alternative that meets the criteria, rather than evaluating all possible options.

⬛ Application and examples in public organizations

The Rational Model remains a valid tool in areas where systematic analysis and planning are essential, such as transportation policy, new town development, and budget allocation. For example, in formulating a national fiscal management plan, the Ministry of Economy and Finance conducts scenario analyses, fiscal balance forecasts, and revenue estimations to determine the optimal course of action, resembling the steps of the Rational Model.

⬛ Limitations and criticism

Incomplete information: impossible to collect all information in practice.
Time and resource constraints: organizations often lack sufficient time and resources.
Cognitive bias: decisions are often influenced by intuition and habit rather than objective analysis.
Political compromise: in public organizations, decisions are often driven more by political negotiation than by rational analysis.

2. Incremental Model – The logic of practical adaptation

⬛ Background of incrementalism

Charles E. Lindblom, in his 1959 paper “The Science of ‘Muddling Through’”, argued that the Rational Model failed to explain actual policy-making processes. He observed that policy decisions are typically made by slightly modifying existing policies, a process he called incrementalism.

Lindblom viewed the Rational Model as overly idealistic and unrealistic, claiming that policy-makers often operate under limited resources and information, making decisions in a way he described as “muddling through.”

⬛ Core concepts of the Incremental Model

Limited alternative exploration: only a few feasible alternatives are considered.
Maintenance of existing policies: small changes are preferred over innovations.
Practical approach: focus is on means rather than ideal ends.
Iterative decision-making: several small decisions gradually adjust overall direction.

⬛ Examples in public policy

For instance, childcare subsidy policies are not overhauled all at once but rather adjusted incrementally through income bracket adjustments, age extensions, and budget recalibrations. Similarly, the central government’s local finance support system is incrementally modified by adjusting allocation ratios and formulas.

⬛ Advantages and limitations

Advantages

Realistic and highly feasible.
Encourages political compromise and consensus.
Reduces risks of unintended consequences from drastic changes.

Limitations

Innovation is difficult, leading to maintenance of the status quo.
Ineffective for addressing structural problems.
May entrench vested interests.

3. Garbage Can Model – Decisions amidst chaos

⬛ Theoretical background

In 1972, Cohen, March, and Olsen, in their paper “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice”, criticized existing decision-making theories for failing to explain the irrationality and randomness often observed in organizations. They argued that in organizations characterized by “organized anarchy,” such as universities and cultural foundations, the Rational and Incremental Models were insufficient.

⬛ Four key components

Problems: perceived grievances or issues that need resolution.
Solutions: ideas or programs that exist but are not yet applied.
Participants: individuals whose participation in decision-making is fluid.
Choice opportunities: formal moments of decision-making, such as meetings or hearings.

These elements exist independently and come together arbitrarily, much like the contents of a garbage can being mixed at random.

⬛ Organized anarchy

Ambiguous goals
Fluid participation
Unclear technology
These traits are commonly observed in universities, cultural organizations, and public institutions.

⬛ Example: Curriculum reform at a university

At a university, when a curriculum revision is proposed, the problem may be declining employment rates, the solution may already exist as an idea like introducing AI-related majors, participants include faculty, students, and external advisers, and the choice opportunity is the faculty meeting. If these elements come together unpredictably, the Garbage Can Model aptly describes the decision-making process.

⬛ Criticism and usage

Emphasizes unpredictability and irrationality.
Does not offer strong practical alternatives.
More useful for theoretical explanation than direct application.
Valuable for understanding flexibility and creativity in public organizations.

4. Comparison and synthesis of the three models

Aspect	Rational Model	Incremental Model	Garbage Can Model
View of humans	Fully rational	Satisficing	Arbitrary
Alternative search	Comprehensive	Limited	Random
Environment	Stable	Gradual change	Chaos
Best fit	Analytical, goal-oriented organizations	Bureaucracies, policy agencies	Loosely structured organizations
Strengths	Systematic, goal-oriented	Practical, feasible	Explains unstructured behavior
Weaknesses	Unrealistic assumptions	Conservative, resistant to innovation	Weak predictive power

These comparisons help organizations determine which model to apply depending on their environment and the nature of the problem.

🟪 In an age of complex choices, which decisions are desirable?

Decision-making theories are a core theme in administrative science and organizational behavior. Public organizations are not mere mechanical systems but social organisms and political spaces where human variables are at play. Therefore, a decision is rarely just the product of logic but is the outcome of a constant balancing of competing forces. From this perspective, the three theories examined in this article each shed light on different aspects of decision-making.

The Rational Model continues to serve as an ideal to strive toward, guiding systematic analysis and logical choice, though often unrealistic. The Incremental Model reflects the reality of constraints and explains why small, gradual changes dominate public policy. The Garbage Can Model offers insight into chaotic, unpredictable decisions in fluid, loosely organized settings.

These theories are complementary, not mutually exclusive. Modern public organizations facing increasingly complex challenges must adopt a flexible approach that integrates systematic analysis, realistic adaptation, and awareness of organizational fluidity.

Ultimately, decision-making is the process of mediating between ideals and reality, norms and procedures, rationality and irrationality. Administrative science must go beyond asking simply how decisions are made to also consider why they are made and what impact they have. Only then can the full depth of organizational life be understood, and better outcomes pursued.