Rationality is a set of skills or aptitudes which one uses to decide actions which lead to goals (Simon).   In order to make a rational decision, the problem should be examined from all sides and the best alternative implemented.  Often decision makers try to be rational but  the decision is bounded or limited because not all the alternatives are known and the time frame is too short to consider all sides to the problem (March).  By analyzing a  superintendent’s decision to fill a position with an unknown newcomer  over a long-term successful administrator  we will see an example of such a bounded decision.

        On the surface the situation looks as if this is simply the case of a school superintendent needing to hire an elementary principal.  Let’s analyze the situation by editing or simplifying it.  According to March, decision makers edit a problem by disregarding information which is not deemed necessary or by eliminating alternatives which are not up to standard.  In this case, the superintendent realized he had less than two months to make a decision and so to maximize time, he had to narrow the number of candidates for the job in order to consider just the ones who were serious candidates.  Because of the short time frame, the superintendent could not consider candidates from out of town.  He limited the search to present employees of the school system.   The school community insisted on a series of three interviews so the superintendent had to deal with a very small number for the interviews to take place and the principal to be hired before the beginning of the school year.  The superintendent eliminated the candidates who did not have the qualifications, those who were from outside the system and those who did not have a favorable work history.  He was left with two serious candidates, both qualified but very different.

        The decision looked like a simple hiring process but by decomposing the problem and analyzing the component parts we see that it is quite complex.  The situation can be broken down into three main parts:  The superintendent had to 1)  hire quickly;   2) find someone to provide leadership in the low performing school and 3) find someone  whom the three interest groups in the community will accept.

        Let’s touch  briefly on these three points to give some background.   The previous principal left the job after the end of the school year and so the superintendent had less than two months to find a replacement (component 1).  The school has consistently been on the bottom of the rankings according to standardized testing.  It had the reputation of being poorly run and poorly staffed( component 2).  The community was demanding that something be done to raise the quality of instruction at the school.  The school was in the middle of a recently upwardly mobile, desirable neighborhood, framed by housing projects and low cost housing.  The middle-class parents, a very vocal minority, were threatening legal action if something wasn’t done immediately so that they could send their children to this school rather than have to pay for private school education (component 3).  In the decision making process, the three components did not have equal importance.  The first gave immediacy to the situation but the last two were the ones the superintendent had to consider in order to make a satisficing decision.

        With the first and second  components of the problem in mind, the superintendent seriously considered two candidates for principal.  One we will call Dr. Jones and the other Dr. Lopez.  The superintendent realized that he had to make the decision quickly.  Both of the candidates were available and willing to take the job.  The superintendent needed someone to raise the test scores at the school.  Both candidates had advanced degrees in education.  Dr Jones’ specialty was educational administration.  He had been the principal of a middle school for 10 years and the school test scores had risen during that time.  He had a favorable reputation in the community as a hard working, fair administrator.  Dr Lopez had a  degree in bilingual education and had been an assistant principal for 2 years and a principal for  part of one.  Parents, teachers and students liked her.  She was serving in a school which had reached accreditation and had very high test scores.  On the surface, both candidates were equally qualified to run a school.

        Looking at the third component, the superintendent knew he had to hire a candidate who could work with the diverse sections of the school community.  Both candidates seemed to be able to fulfill this aspect.  Since Dr Lopez was a member of the hispanic community and fluent in Spanish, she seemed more qualified in this area.  But Dr Jones had been the principal of a multi-ethnic school  in the community for ten years.

        Another way to simplify the decision making process is in terms of heuristics or patterns which occur in familiar situations.  The superintendent had hired many principals and he was following most of the same patterns.  The only difference in this case was the lack of time in order to consider all of the candidates.  Some whom he eliminated in the beginning might have been viable possibilities.  Therefore, from the beginning, he was seeking a satisficing solution.  Since he could not afford the time to bring outsiders in for the series of interviews which the community demanded, he had to consider only the ones who were already in the school system and were known by the community.

        According to March, decisions are framed by the beliefs which surround the problem and provide a perspective which dictates what questions are to be asked.  Framing focuses and narrows attention.  Frames are “encased in early individual experiences that shape individual approaches to problems.” (p.14)  In the case of this decision, the superintendent asked himself some basic questions which he uses with all high-level personnel decisions:  What is best for the school?  Who will bring the most expertise and stability to this particular school?  The answer to these questions decided  who got the position.   Answering these framing questions, the superintendent decided that Dr. Jones, who was clearly more experienced, was not the best person for the position because he was near retirement  and would not commit more than one year, possibly two to the position.  Dr Jones wanted a safe job since he was at the end of his career.  Even though he had a good track record, Dr Jones was not a risk-taker and the superintendent felt that he would be a proponent of the status quo.  A short-term status quo promoter would not solve two out of the three components of the problem.  The other candidate, although unproved in a principal’s position was given the job because she would provide stability, was young and energetic with lots of ideas.  He felt that her enthusiasm along with her background in bilingual education would serve her well in the community and in running the school.

        By analyzing the decision making process in terms of editing, decomposing, looking at heuristics and by framing, we can see how a decision is bound by its circumstances.  In this case, the superintendent looked at the candidates and looked at the consequences of hiring each.  Then he framed the questions which experience taught him were the most important and made a bounded, rational decision.

 

Return to top

Return to EDUC 802