DruckerPeter F., Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, New York, Harper and Row, 1973. As he puts it, “The first managerial skill is … the making of effective decisions”.
2.
MachlupFritz, “Theories of the Firm: Marginalist, Behavioural, Managerial”, American Economic Review, LVII, 1967,1–33.
3.
BernardC., The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1938.
4.
SimonHerbert A., Administrative Behaviour, New York, Free Press, 1947.
5.
SimonHerbert A., “A Behavioural Model of Rational Choice”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1955, 69,99–118.
6.
DahlR. A. and LindblomCharles, Politics, Economics and Welfare, New York, 1953.
7.
CyertR. M. and MarchJ. G., A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1963.
8.
SimonHerbert A., The New Science of Management Decision (revised edition), Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1977.
9.
GalbraithJohn K., The New Industrial State, New York, 1973.
10.
HalberstamDavid, The Best and the Brightest, New York, Randon House, 1969.
11.
BaumolW. J., Business Behaviour, Value and Growth, New York, 1959.
12.
GalbraithJohn K., The New Industrial State, op. cit.
13.
BaronPaul and SweezyP. M., Monopoly Capital, Penguin, 1968.
14.
SimonHerbert A., “Theories of Decision-Making In Economics and Behavioural Science”, American Economic Review, 1969, 64,253–283.
15.
GeorgiouP., “The Goal Paradigm and Notes Towards a Counter Paradigm”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 1973,291–310.
16.
ThompsonJ. D., Organizations in Action, New York, McGraw Hill, 1967.
17.
CohenM. D. and MarchJ. G., Leadership and Ambiguity, New York, McGraw Hill, 1974.
18.
For a discussion of both rational and irrational orientations, see Erb, Everett and Hooker, Douglas, The Psychology of the Emerging Self, Philadelphia, F. A. Davis Company, 1971, pp.51–58.
19.
PatchenMartin, “Decision Theory in the Study of National Action: Problems and a Proposal”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 9, 1965,164–176.
20.
MintzbergHenry, et al., “The Structure of ‘Unstructured’ Decision Processes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1976, p.246.
21.
MintzbergHenry, et al., “The Structure of ‘Unstructured’ Decision Processes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1976, p.249.
22.
SimonHerbert A., Administrative Behaviour, Third Edition, New York, Free Press, 1976, p.39.
23.
MouzelisNicos P., Organization and Bureaucracy, Chicago, Aldine, 1967, p.51.
24.
SimonHerbert A., Administrative Behaviour, p.204.
25.
BurnsT. and StalkerG. M., The Management of Innovation, London, Tavistock, 1961.
26.
For a discussion, see SimonH. A., The New Science of Management Decision, op. cit., Chapter 1. See also HammonJ. S., “The Roles of the Manager and Management Scientist In Successful Implementation”, Sloan Management Review, Winter1974, pp.1–24.
27.
LindblomCharles, “The Science of ‘Muddling Through’”, Public Administration Review, 1954, 19,79–88.
28.
LindblomCharles, A Strategy of Decision, New York, Free Press, 1963; and The Policy Making Process, New York, Prentice Hall, 1968.
29.
AllisonGraham T., Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Boston, Little Brown, 1971.
30.
LindblomCharles, “The Science of ‘Muddling Through’”, op. cit., p.87.
31.
WildavskyAaron, The Politics of the Budgetary Process, Boston, Little Brown and Company, 1964. See also PfefferJ. and SalancikG. R., “Organizational Decision-Making As A Political Process: The Case of a University Budget”, Administrative Science Quarterly, June 1974.
32.
DrorY., Public Policy Re-examined, New York, 1966.
33.
DrorY., Public Policy Re-examined, New York, 1966, p.145.
34.
BouldingKenneth, ‘Book Review’ of Lindblom, “A Strategy of Decision”, American Sociological Review, 1964, p.931.
35.
Cyert and March, op. cit.
36.
MarchJ. G. and SimonH. A., Organizations, New York, Wiley, 1958.
37.
PerrowCharles, Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay, Glenview, III., Scott Foresmen, 1972, pp.146–150.
38.
AnsoffIgor, Corporate Strategy, New York, McGraw Hill, 1965.
39.
CarterE. Eugene, “The Behavioural Theory of the Firm and Top Level Corporate Decisions”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 16,413–428.
40.
Ansoff, op. cit., p.viii.
41.
Bernard, The Functions of the Executive, op. cit.
42.
ChandlerAlfred D., Strategy and Structure, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1962.
43.
ScottBruce, “The Individual State: Old Myths and New Realities”, Harvard Business Review, 1973, 51.
44.
For a summary and synthesis, see HorvathDezso, and McMillanCharles, “Strategy, Structure and Performance: A Contingency Model”, York University. Unpublished manuscript, 1978.
45.
NewellAllen and SimonHerbert A., Human Problem Solving, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1972.
46.
MintzbergH., et al., op. cit.
47.
WeberMax. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Glencoe, III., Free Press, 1947.
48.
ChandlerAlfred, Strategy and Structure, op. cit. Chandler identified four basic strategies of growth: expansion of volume, geographical dispersion, vertical integration and diversification.
49.
ChandlerAlfred, Strategy and Structure, op. cit. Chandler identified four basic strategies of growth: expansion of volume, geographical dispersion, vertical integration and diversification., p.15.
50.
ChandlerAlfred, Strategy and Structure, op. cit. Chandler identified four basic strategies of growth: expansion of volume, geographical dispersion, vertical integration and diversification., p.13.
51.
Organizations, op. cit., p.185.
52.
Chandler, p.15.
53.
SelznickPhilip, Leadership In Administration, New York, 1957.
54.
KatzDaniel and KahnRobert, The Social Psychology of Organizations, New York, John Wiley, 1978.
55.
ChildJohn, “Organizational Structure, Environment, and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice”, Sociology, 1972, 6,1–22.
WrigleyLeonard, “Divisional Autonomy and Diversification” (Unpublished Dissertation), Boston, Harvard University, 1970; RumeltR., Strategy, Structure and Performance, Boston, Harvard University Press, 1974; Horvath, Dezso, Situationsan-passade Organizationer: Teori och Tillampning, Umea Universitet, Sweden, 1976.
58.
FrancoL. G., “The Move Towards A Multidivisional Structure In European Organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 19,493–505; AldrichHoward, “Technology and Organizational Structure: A Re-examination of the Aston Group”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975, 17,26–43.
59.
Simon, The New Science of Management Decision, op. cit.
60.
Newell and Simon, Human Problem Solving, op. cit.
61.
Simon, op. cit., p.65.
62.
Simon, op. cit., p.70.
63.
MintzbergHenry, et al., “The Structure of ‘Unstructured’ Decision Processes”, op. cit. This study involves an analysis of 25 strategic decisions (e.g. an airline choosing a new jet aircraft, a radio station firing a star announcer) spanning from six months to more than four years.
64.
MintzbergHenry, “Planning on the Left Side and Managing on the Right”, Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1976; see also GazannigaM. S., Bisected Brain, New York, Appleton, 1970.
65.
ArygrisChris, “Personality and Organization Theory Revisited”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1973, 18,141–168; “Some Limits of Rational Man Organization Theory”, Public Administration Review, 1973, 33,253–267.
66.
ArygrisChris, “Single-Loop and Double-Loop Models in Research on Decision-Making”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21,363–375.
67.
CohenMichael D., MarchJ. G. and OlsenJohan P., “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17,1–25.
68.
CohenMichael D., MarchJ. G. and OlsenJohan P., “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, p.2.
69.
Cyert and March, The Behavioural Theory of the Firm, op. cit.
70.
Perrow, op. cit., p. 162.
71.
Cohen, et al., op. cit., p.2.
72.
Cohen, et al., op. cit., p.2.
73.
Leadership and Ambiguity, op. cit.
74.
Leadership and Ambiguity, op. cit., p.126.
75.
Leadership and Ambiguity, op. cit., p. 126.
76.
GeorgeAlexander L., “The Case for Multiple Advocacy In Making Foreign Policy”, American Political Science Review, 1972, 66,751–785.
77.
GeorgeAlexander L., “The Case for Multiple Advocacy In Making Foreign Policy”, American Political Science Review, 1972, 66,751–785.
78.
SilbertsonBernard, “Ringisei — Traditional Values on Organizational Imperatives in the Japanese Upper Civil Service: 1868–1945”, Journal of Asian Studies, 1972, 32,251–264.
79.
Op. cit.
80.
WarnerStanley W., “Advocate Scoring for Unbiased Information”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1975, 70,15–22.
81.
WarnerStanley W., “Advocate Scoring for Unbiased Information”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1975, 70,15–22.
82.
KuhnTillo, “Economics and Multiple Objectives in Urban Transportation”, International Journal of Transport Economics, 1976, 3,3–21.
83.
HicksonD. J., et. al., “Organization Decision-Making: Process and Content”, International Studies of Management and Organisation, 1980, IX,5–36.
84.
PettigrewA. M., The Politics of Organizational Decision-Making, London, Tavistock, 1973.
85.
For one attempt, focusing on entrepreneurial decision-making, see WebsterF. A., “Entrepreneurs and Ventures: An attempt at Classification and Clarification”, Academy of Management Review, January 1977.
86.
MarchJ. G. and OlsenJ. P., Ambiguity and Choice In Organizations, Bergen, Universitetsfarbaget, 1976. For a related analysis, drawing on such diverse areas as Zen philosophy, transcendental meditation, encounter groups, ESP and humanistic psychology, see Leavitt, Harold, “Beyond the Analytic Manager”, California Management Review I and II, Spring and Summer, 1975, especially pp.12–19. According to Leavitt, “The analytic method, in its computer-assisted form, has been accused of missing immeasurable subtleties of redefining the real problems into forms that miss the point, and of naivete and arrogance in its dealing with human problems of input and implementation” (p.20).