This study examines the proposed and utilized decision-making processes of an interagency taskforce formed to create a strategic plan for addressing substance abuse concerns. Analysis of data obtained through prolonged observation, interviews, and document collection indicated that, although the planned structure remained relatively intact, the taskforce deviated from planned decision-making processes in the procedures and decision-making criteria utilized. These deviations were justified through retrospective rationality and strategic ambiguity. Although prior research has described decision making using rational, satisficing, and garbage can models, the theoretical implications of this study point to a renewed understanding of collaborative decision making combining these approaches. Ultimately, this study illustrates how the characteristics of a loosely coupled, bona fide interorganizational group both enabled and constrained the decision-making process. Accordingly, practitioners and scholars alike should consider the advantages and limitations of retrospective rationality and strategic ambiguity across a variety of group and organizational contexts.
AgostoD. E. (2002). Bounded rationality and satisficing in young people’s web-based decision making. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 16-27. doi:10.1002/asi.10024
2.
BaraldiC. (2013). Forms of decision making: Gatekeeping and dialogic coordination in CISV organizational meetings. Journal of Business Communication, 50, 339-361. doi:10.1177/0021943613497055
3.
BarringerB. R.HarrisonJ. S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26, 367-403. doi:10.1177/014920630002600302
4.
BaumannM. R.BonnerB. L. (2013). Member awareness of expertise, information sharing, information weighting, and group decision making. Small Group Research, 44, 532-562. doi:10.1177/1046496413494415
5.
BrewerM. B. (2012). Optimal distinctiveness theory: Its history and development. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 81-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6.
CastorT. R. (2005). Constructing social reality in organizational decision making: Account vocabularies in a diversity discussion. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 479-508. doi:10.1177/0893318904273689
7.
CohenM. D.MarchJ. G.OlsenJ. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25. doi:10.2307/2392088
8.
ConnollyT. (1980). Uncertainty, action, and competence: Some alternatives to omniscience in complex problem-solving. In FiddleS. (Ed.), Uncertainty: Behavioral and social dimensions (pp. 69-91). New York, NY: Praeger.
9.
CooperK. R.ShumateM. (2012). Interorganizational collaboration explored through the bona fide network perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 623-654. doi:10.1177/0893318912462014
10.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
11.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
12.
DeweyJ. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.
13.
EisenbergE. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242. doi:10.1080/03637758409390197
14.
GrimmR.FoxC.BainesS.AlbertsonK. (2013). Social innovation, an answer to contemporary societal challenges? Locating the concept in theory and practice. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26, 436-455. doi:10.1080/13511610.2013.848163
15.
GuoC.AcarM. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations: Combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 340-361. doi:10.1177/0899764005275411
16.
HarrissonD.LabergeM. (2002). Innovation, identities and resistance: The social construction of an innovation network. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 497-521. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00301
17.
HeathR. G. (2007). Rethinking community collaboration through a dialogic lens: Creativity, democracy, and diversity in community organizing. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 145-171. doi:10.1177/0893318907306032
18.
HirokawaR. Y.RostK. M. (1992). Effective group decision making in organizations: Field test of the vigilant interaction theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 5, 267-288. doi:10.1177/0893318992005003001
19.
KaluK. N. (2005). Competing ideals and the public agenda in Medicare reform: The “garbage can” model revisited. Administration & Society, 37, 23-56. doi:10.1177/0095399704272593
20.
KeytonJ.FordD. J.SmithF. I. (2008). A mesolevel communicative model of collaboration. Communication Theory, 18, 276-406. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00327
21.
KeytonJ.StallworthV. (2003). On the verge of collaboration: Interaction process versus group outcomes. In FreyL. R. (Ed.), Group communication in contexts: Studies of bona fide groups (pp. 235-260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
KohnN. W.PaulusP. B.ChoiY. H. (2011). Building on the ideas of others: An examination of the idea combination process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 554-561. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.01.004
23.
KoschmannM. A.KuhnT. R.PfarrerM. D. (2012). A communicative framework of value in cross-sector partnerships. Academy of Management Review, 37, 332-354. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0314
24.
LangleyA.MintzbergH.PitcherP.PosadaE.Saint-MacaryJ. (1995). Opening up decision making: The view from the black stool. Organization Science, 6, 260-279. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.3.260
25.
LindlofT. R.TaylorB. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26.
MillerK.ScottC. R.StageC.BirkholtM. (1995). Communication and coordination in an interorganizational system: Service provision for the urban homeless. Communication Research, 22, 679-699. doi:10.1177/009365095022006006
27.
MintzbergH.WestleyF. (2010). Decision making: It’s not what you think. In NuttP. C.WilsonD. C. (Eds.), Handbook of decision making (pp. 73-81). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
28.
NuttP. C. (2011). Making decision-making research matter: Some issues and remedies. Management Research Review, 33, 1-16. doi:10.1108/01409171111096441
29.
NuttP. C.WilsonD. C. (2010). Crucial trends and issues in strategic decision making. In NuttP. C.WilsonD. C. (Eds.), Handbook of decision making (pp. 3-29). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
30.
OliverC. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15, 241-265. doi:10.5465/AMR.1990.4308156
31.
PapadakisB.ThanosI.BarwiseP. (2010). Research on strategic decisions: Taking stock and looking ahead. In NuttP. C.WilsonD. C. (Eds.), Handbook of decision making (pp. 31-70). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
32.
PutnamL. L.StohlC. (1996). Bona fide groups: An alternative perspective for communication and small group decision making. In HirokawaR. Y.PooleM. S. (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 147-178). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
33.
RaineyH. G.RonquilloJ. C.AvellanedaC. N. (2010). Decision making in public organizations. In NuttP. C.WilsonD. C. (Eds.), Handbook of decision making (pp. 349-377). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
34.
SimonH. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. New York, NY: John Wiley.
35.
SonnenwaldD. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 643-681. doi:10.1002/aris.2007.1440410121
36.
SowaJ. E. (2008). The collaboration decision in nonprofit organizations: Views from the front line. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 1003-1025. doi:10.1177/0899764008325247
37.
StohlC.WalkerK. (2002). A bona fide perspective for the future of groups: Understanding collaborating groups. In FreyL. R. (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 237-252). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
TracyK.StanderferC. (2003). Selecting a school superintendent: Sensitivities in group deliberation. In FreyL. R. (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 109-134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
VlaarP. W. L.Van den BoschF. A. J.VolberdaH. W. (2006). Coping with problems of understanding in interorganizational relationships: Using formalization as a means to make sense. Organization Studies, 27, 1617-1638. doi:10.1177/0170840606068338
40.
ZeyM. (1992). Criticisms of rational choice models. In ZeyM. (Ed.), Decision making: Alternatives to rational choice models (pp. 9-31). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
