Bounded Rationality applied to a fictitious work situation
EDUC 802 Fall, 2002
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.