Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Ambigui\)
ünd Interpretation
175
17 6 A pRtMER oN DECrsroN MAKTNG Ambiguity and Interpretation 17 7
chapters differ in how they imagine that order to be created and notion that there is an orderly link between history 3nd the evo-
maintained, but not in a conception of decision making as dis- lution of rules. Students of decision making harbor an affection
cerning, exPloiting, and affecting a coherent world. The present fbr order in general, and a paftictlar affection for order based
chapter considers a set of ideas that locate decision making in a on those three ideas.
confusing world, ideas in which the standard emphasis on co-
herence is questioned.
5.1.2 Confusions and Complexities
5.1..7 Conceptions of Order Such conceptions of order seem, however, to underestimate the
confusion and complexity surrounding actual decision making.
Classic conceptions of order in decision making involve three The obsenrations are familiar. Many things are happening at
closely related ideas. The first is reality, the idea that there exists once; practices, forms, and technologies are changing and poor-
an objective world that can be perceived, and that only one such ly understood; preferences, identities, rules, and perceptions
world exists. An object either exists or does not. An event either are indeterminate and changirg; problems, solutions, opportu-
has happened or has not. Actions that are taken and outcomes nities, ideas, situations, people, and outcomes are mixed to-
that follow can be related to each other in a unified, consistent gether in ways that make their interpretation uncertain and
way. History is real. their connections unclear; decisions at one time and place ap-
The second idea is causality, the idea that reality and history pear to have only a loose tie to decisions at others; solutions
aÍe structured by chains of causes and effects. Within such a seem to have only modest connection to problems; policies are
conception, choices affect consequences, and decisions are not implemented; decision makers seem to wander in and out
means to desired ends. Causal relevance links solutions to of decision arenas and seem to say one thing while doing another.
problems. Learning stems from comprehensible experience and Decision histories are often difficult to describe. When (and
causal inferences about that experience. Conflict is joined and even whether) a decision was made, who made it, with what in-
resolved by making a causal connection between negotiation, tentioos, and with what consequences are all often obscure.
bargaining, or exchange and their consequences. Many decisions are made by default, and decision processes
The third idea is intentionality, the idea that decisions are in- often exercise problems without solving them. Decisions are
struments of purpose and self. Rational choice, learniog, rule made outside of an explicit decision process, and decision
followitg, bargaining, and exchange all serve preferences and processes often fail to make decisions. The attention of partici-
identities. Preferences and identities are imposed on actions pants is difficult to predict simply from the properties of the
through the evaluation of anticipated consequences (as in ratio- choice being considered. Participants fight for the right to par-
nal choice), through the evaluation of experience (ur in learl- ticipate, then don't exercise it. I)ecision makers ignore informa-
ing), or through the matching of identities to situations (ur in tion they have, ask for more, then ignore the new information.
rule following). History is interpreted in terms of prior inten- Organizations buffer the process of decision making from the
tions and identities, each stemming from a conception of self. processes of implementation. Participants argue acrimoniously
Variations on those three ideas permeate thinking about de* over policy, but once policy is implemented the same partici-
cision making. They permeate this book. Conceptions of ratio- pants seem indifferent to its implementation.
nal, consequential action depend on commitménts to reality, On the basis of such obseryations, organizational decision
causality, and intentionality,as central organizing ideas. Con- processes have been described as funny soccer games: "Consid-
ceptions of appropriateness and rule following depend on the or a round, sloped, multi-goal field on which individuals play
lTtt A pRrMliR trN DECtstoN MAKTN(j Arnhiguity and lnter¡trt,lctliott 17L)
soccer. Many different people (but not everyone) can join thc that any one thing is true, or that the world can be partitioned
game (ot leave it) at different times. Some people can throw ballg into mutually exhaustive and exclusive states, or that informa-
into the game or remove them. While they ut" in the game, indi. tion will resolve the lack of clarity. Ambiguity refers to features
viduals try to kick whatever ball comes near them in the direc. of decision making in which alternative states are hazily defined
tion of goals they like and away from goals they wish to avoid.o' I or in which they have multiple meanings, simultaneously oppos-
ing interpretations. Students of ambiguity argue that informa-
tion may not resolve misunderstandings of the world; that the
5.1.3 Ambiguity
"real" world may itself be a product of social construction, thus
These confusions and complexities have led to an interest in not so much discovered as invented; that interpretations of ex-
"ambiguity." Ambiguify refers to a lack of clarify or consistency perience and desires may be fundamentally ambivalent rather
in realify, causality, or intentionality. Ambiguous situations are than simply uncertain; and that ambiguity may be used to aug-
situations that cannot be coded precisely into mutually exhaus- ment understanding through imagination.
tive and exclusive categories. Ambiguous purposes ate inten,
tions that cannot be specified clearly. Ambiguous identitieg AMBIGUITY AND DECISION MAKING
are identities whose rules or occasions for application are im.
Ambiguities of experience and desire are challenges to stan-
precise or contradictory. Ambiguous outcomes are outcome¡¡
dard notions of decision making order. From a calculus that
whose chatacters or implications are fuzry. Ambiguous histo.
sees alternative states of the world as mutually exclusive and ex-
ries are histories that do not provide unique, comprehensible
haustive and causality as orderly, we are led to a calculus that
interp retatiorls.
allows the simultaneous existence of opposites and causal incon-
sistencies. From a conception of wants as consistent and clear:,
AMBIGUITYANDUNCERTAINTY i
we are led to a conception of wants as contradictory and fuzry.
Ambiguity is related to, but distinguishable from, uncertainty. Worlds in which interpretation and desires are contradictory
In most theories of decision making, uncertainty refers to im- and causality is unfáthomable can be disturbing. They are rep-
precision in estimates of future consequences conditional on resented in fairy tales by the forest (dark, forbidding, and dan-
present actions. Such theories assume gerous) and in stories of adventure by the sea (dark, powerful,
fil that it is possible to
speciff all the mutually exhaustive and exclusive states of the and uncontrollable). Ambiguous worlds are disturbing, but they
world that might exist; (2) that although it is not possible to are also magical. Beauty and ugliness are compounded; reality
speci$r precisely which state exists, some state doós, in fact, and fantasy are intertwined; history is created; intelligence is
:
exist;and(3)thattheuncertaintyaboutwhichstateexistswili expanded.
be reduced by the unfolding of information over time. The idea In this chapter the story of decision making moves away from
is that there is a real world that is imperfectly understood. It concepts tied tightly to ideas of reality, causality, and intention-
t-utl in principle, be understood ality in order to explore decision aÍenas within which meaning
--at least up to some irre-
ducible noise. Uncertainty is a limitation on understanding and is obscure. We leave a decision world with coherent intentions,
intelligence. ft is reduced through the rcalizations of history, expectations, identities, and rules. Decisions ate seen as vehi-
search, and negotiation cles for constructing meaningful interpretations of fundamen-
When a situation is described as ambiguot¿s, on the other tally confusing worlds, not as outcomes produced by a comprc-
hand, what is meant is that a decision maker is less confident hensible environment. Decision processes sometimcs hccomc
l8o A pRrMnR clN DHCrsroN MAKTNC
Ambi¿4uity and lnter¡tretatbn l8 I
wt ut ioentityl's by their experience. FIow is it possible that they might make in-
relevant in such a situation and what it requires.
rrr-"u.t ferences incorrectly, yet believe in them firmly? Decision rnak-
one guess is about a reality external to the self
and one"urr,
is a ors often believe things that outside obsen¡ers consider to be
guess about the self.
Those guesses are sometimes given other names. contradictory. Ffow do they develop and believe simultaneously
They are opposing interpretations?
called things like estimations, specifications, or
¿"i"r-inltionr. In an old fairy tale about beliefs, a sly tailor persuades an em-
Such terms are quite t"urottubl" and will sometimes
here, but they have a deceptive aura of corrcreteness
¡" ,rr"¿ peror (and most of his subjects) that a naked monarch is actual-
una pr".i ly wearing a robe made from a fabric so exquisite (and expen-
sion. Even the more eregánt procedures for
estimating f,rture sive) that only people of great virtue and sophistication can see
consequences, defining current situations, specising
obiectives, it. The story invites discussion of some subtle questions about
or determining identities are filled with assumptiJ", á"J
proximations that make them better ¿escriueá -;r""rr.."
up- sclcial beliefs and their connection to reality: If the emperor's
;. clothes did not exist, is it possible that a belief in them might be
than as "best estimates.',
sustained? Is it possible that such a belief might be desirable? Is
1'82 A pnrMriR oN DricrsroN MAKIN(;
Arnbi¡4uity and lrtterprc,lulion I tt3
it possible to sustain meaningful simultaneous beliefs both in
the existence of the clothes and in the true reality of the ¡rnd intentionality. As a result, human interpretations of history
effipef,
or's nakedness? sonsistently exagg erate the coherence and necessity of realized
The story about the emperor's new clothes is actually les¡ history, the role of hurnan intention and action in history, and
complicated than real life, because the storyteller tells the the comprehensibility of historical forces. Historical accounts
read.
er that the fabric is really a fraud perpetrated by the tailor, define historical events and establish causal and personal ac-
Thus, the story emphasizes the ways in wirich social processes countability for the events they define. They fit the world into
of an interpretive frame that is comfortable and familiar.
sharing belief can lead to ridiculous beliefs. fn ordin ary
experi.
ence, the problems are greater. Instead of knowing ift. Human decision makers exhibit regularities in their interpre-
truth
and inquiring whether social beliefs are consistent *ittr tations of history. fn particular, studies of interpretations indi-
it, indi.
viduals observe social beliefs and ask whether they might cate three distinct biases:
bg
false, despite being widely believed. L. Belief conseration. Decision makers conserve belief. That
Since the processes by which false beliefs are formed, is, they tend to interpret new experiences and information
trans.
mitted, and reinforced are indistinguishable from the processeg in ways that make them consistent with prior beliefs. Since
by which true beliefs are, indiviOuáls cannot infer müch experience tends to be ambiguous and beliefs tend to be
about
the validity of beliefs from their universality. As a result, strong, this effect is substantial.
when
they confront widely held (ot reported) beliefs, for example 2. Event certainty. Decision makers overestimate the proba-
about the efficacy of medic al fteatment, the value of education, bility of events they have actually experienced and under-
or the distinctiven:tt of good wines, they cannot be sure that estimate the probability of events that might have oc-
the beliefs reflect the truth. Indeed, they know that many curred but did not. Thus, they tend to learn too much
of the '
beliefs that historically have been helá to be incontrovertible from the precise event that happened and learn too little
are now believed to be false. from the many things that almost happened. They con-
A thoughtful (and somewhat pedantic) reader of iairy tales struct theories of history that make observed historical
mightwellask:AretherepsychblogicaIandsociologicalPr0. outcomes necessory, certain, and obvious, rather than a
cesses by which an unwarranted belief in the existetti.
of the draw from alarge pool of possible outcomes.
emperor's clothes can be sustained? If the emperor's clothee 3. Anthropocentric focus. Decision makers construct anthro-
did not exist, might intelligent people come to believe in pocentric theories of history. That is, they attribute events
their
existence? If variation in the quality of wines is not reliably to the actions and wills of human beings. They attribute
de-
tected by most human taste buds, rnight intelligent people history to factors of intention and competence, rather
come
to believe in good wines? Are there features of human infer- than chance or happenstance. If something happens, they
ence which, in combination with plausible features of
historical imagine that it happened because someone wanted it to
processes, are likely to lead human beings to misinterpret
their happen or someone made a mistake.
experience and their perceptions? Are th.tr system atic
conse-
quences of such potential misinterpretations? Those three features of interpretation are accentuated by the
As has been seen earlier in the discussions of human infer. ; fact that most decision makers rise to positions of authorfty by
ence, the answer to each of those questions is an virtue of past successes. Success tends to confirm beliefs and
unconditional
"yes." Ambiguous histories are r*p.tienced in a personal make them less vulnerable to contradictory evidence. Success
and
social context that largely accepts the ideas of reatity, tends to make it easier to see history as lawful and determinate
causality,
rather than chancelike. And success tends to reinforce the no-
Itt4 A r)nrMun oN DucrrsroN MAKTNC
Antbi¡4uity urtd lnterprc'lctlio¡t I tt5
tion that history is due to human agency. Thus, top-level deci. The switch from one interpretation to another is partly a
sion makers ate particularly likely to exhibit these interpretive
l'unction of situation. Children present an interpretation of the
biases.
world to their parents that is different from the interpretation
t hey present to peers. Students readily shift interpretations to
INCONSISTENT INTERPRETATI ONS
roflect the expectations of instructors. Consultants interpret
A more subtle feature of historical interpretation is the devel. t hings differently as they move from one world to another. The
opment of simultaneous, inconsistent inte rpretations. If eve ry. shifts may be consciously manipulative, but they often are not.
thing must be interpreted but the evidential basis for interpro. Students are often unconscious of the inconsistencies shown in
tation is modest, human actors and institutions will Oevélop t heir collection of examination papers if considered as a whole.
that the argument between Carlyle and Tolstoy cannot be set. i The power story. Powerful people get what they want. How is
tled by recourse to the data of history. Each side can cite "evi. power measured? By measuring the extent to which peo-
dence" that can be interpreted to jusdry its beliefs. i ple get what they want.
Stories told of leaders, like stories of other things , are cotl.' The personality story. People do things because of their basic
structed in a language that encourages simultaneous contradic¡ personalities. How is personality defined? By observing
tory beliefs. Consider, for example, the ways in which individual, what people do.
decision makers aÍe chara cterized. Descriptions of decisio$ The utility story. People choose things because of the vaXue
makers and their decisions are typically org anized around a sg{ they associ ate with the outcomes. How are the things peo-
ries of behavioral dimensions. Characteristically, howevgf,¡, ple value determined? By observing what they choose.
those descriptions are couched less in terms of obsetvable Ue"j The culture story. People behave in ways that are consistent
havior than in terms of evaluative labels attached to the behav. with their cultural traditions. FIow is the culture to which a
ior. Moreover, each observable behavior has both a positivq person belongs determined? By observing what cultural
and a negative label: rules he or she follows.
Dimension I bold (foolish) careful (timid) Such theories provide glib post hoc explanations for anything
Dimension 2 independent (arrogant) consultative (indecisive) y that might happen. They provide a story line that allows a cer-
Dimension 3 fresh (naive) sophisticat ed (cynical) i
tain amount of elaboration. The traditional'objection to them is
Dimension 4 honest (rude) sympathetic (soft) :
that they do not provide much power for predicting what will
,i.i
happen. Precisely because they can explain anythitg, they can
Each kind of behavior has simultaneous opposite labels dj
predict nothing.
evaluations. As a result, interpretations can be changed almogt,
Such objections may perhaps miss the obvious point that
instantly. When a decision or a decision maker is successful, ong'
most story lines are more frequently used to interpret past out-
set of labels is likely to be highlighted. When a decision or a dei,
comes than they ate to predict future ones. Decision makers, as
cision maker is unsuccessful, another set of labels is highlighted,
well as others, devote more time and energy to explaining
Boldness becomes foolishness. Ffonesty becomes rudentut.
things, talking about them, and exhibiting intelligence in com-
These radically different labels develop together, each con.'
prehending them than they do in predicting the future. Tauto-
tributing to its contrast and to sustaining contradictory beliefs. ,
logical beliefs and story lines ate valuable frames for conversa-
tion. They provide a rhetoric of confidence and irrefutability
TAUTOLOGYAND BELIEF
that fits the identity of a decision maker. Decision makers are
Decision makers, like other humars, tend to develop general, supposed to act with confidence in their own understanding of a
purpose weak theories (e.g. "human beings ate inherently situation. These tautologies allow them to do so. The costs of
good") to account for history. The theories ategeneral-purpo$€ predictive ambiguity are relatively minor.
in the sense that they can be applied to many situations. They
are weak in the sense that they are not easily susceptible to dis.
5.2.2 Ambiguities of the Self
confirmation. Indeed, many of the theories used in discussiong
of decision making are essentially tautologies. They are true by ln theories of decision making based on a logic of consequence,
virtue of a circular definition of their key term or terms. ¡rossible choices are compared in terms of their consequences.
Thutologies abound in ordin ary discourse, includitrg the ordi- 'fhe self of a decision maker is found in a set of preferences. In
nary discourse of social science: t hoories of decision making based on a logic of appropriate-
I 88 A pRTMUR oN DHCrsroN MAKTNC ::
sions by considering their effects on future preferences. maker identity, they do many of the same things. But exactly
They
are repelled b¡r their own desires and attractld what is to be doile, or how it is to be done in a specific situation,
by desires they
do not have. They avoid sweets because they,,don,t is often ambiguous.
want to do.
velop a taste" for them. They endure opera and baflet An identity is like a folk tale. If a storyteller is asked to tell a
(or foot.
ball and beer) in hopes that theywill become the particular story and responds by telling a different one, the au-
kind oip"rron
who likes them. They say théy fike "good" wine but leavs dience can tell that it is not the right story. Still, each storyteller
"good" undefined. treat túeir preférences strategically in tells the same story in a different w&y, emphasizing some things,
an infinite game withtr:v
themselves as ihey try to control íh"i, l"r, adding details, omitting others. And each storyteller shapes the
attractive desires. Tleir deepest feelings iend to story to be appropriate for an audience. A folk tale is different
be paired in
contradictoly ways. They experience love and hate, when told in different voices, or to different audiences, though
ár accep.
tance and rejection, not so much as opposite, it is at the same time recognizable as the same story. For exam-
u, of
each other. "o*ponents ple, the ethnic and scatological content of folk tales seems to be
added and subtracted routinely to accommodate audience seil'
AMBIGUITIES OF IDENTITIES sibilities, but a sense of story integrify remains. Gradually o-ver
time, a story changes. Each change is small and local, but the
Identities are similarry ambiguous. An assertion cumulative drift can lead to a transformation large enough that
that situations
evoke identities and that uótors follow rules only scholars can recognize a story's history in a current tale.
associated with
their identities glosses over some significant lack of Identities evolve in a similar way. Individuals and societies
clar,ity.
As was observed in chapter 2, individuals have struggle to discover, interpret, and create the meaning of iden-
multiple identi.
ties, and determining which identity shourd be tities. Consider, for example, the efforts of Western societies to
evokeá in a par.
ticular situation, or what to do when several are evoked, understand and shape gender identities over the past fort¡r
is
often difficult. years. Those efforts have been politi cal, ideological, and per-
ambiguities of identity, however, are not limited sonal. They have included public debate and political pressure
to con-
flict among them. Identities are defined in te'ns-oi eap".au. to change ways of acting and thinking. They have involved un-
tions that are likelyto be imprecise, inconsistent,
unstablf, and counted articles and books detailing what it means to be a
endogenous. whai it means to ue án engineer, woman or a man in modern society. Those works have proposed,
an accountant,
or an executive is continually being comprehended, proclaimed, celebrated, and bemoaned changes in gender identi-
even as it is
changing. How does a mother knów what it ties. They have become the bases of uncounted conversations
mears to act as a
mother? Partly, she learns how to be a proper mother and encounters molding individual and social understanding.
by ob-
serving other mothers. partry, she interpréts ñ", The efforts have involved millions of individuals !rying to make
own instinctive
behavior. Partly, she is instructed by otlers in the sense of how to act in day-by-day concrete situations.
,o.i"t¡ rurt-
ly, she engages in discussions with hlrself and As a result of all of those efforts, gender identities have
with others as she
tries to fulfill the role. changed. Sociefy and individuals think of women and men in
similarly, decision makers learn to be proper decision waystiff.rent from only a few decades ago. And those differ-
mak-
by observing others, by interpreting tñeiiown ences make an appreciable difference to the lives of meri and
.ers behavior, by
instruction, and by discourse. Tit"r" iJ consistency women. Being a woman or being a man means something in
that the identity of "decision maker" is meaningful, "r""grt
,"
so thai ask- these societies. They are not empty terms. At the sarne time,
ing someone in an organization to play a decisio-n neither are they terms with precise, consistent meaning. They
rlr" is
a meaningful request. As different people fulfilr-uting are ambiguous. They include contradictions, confusions, and ob-
the iecision
192 A pRrMHtr 0N DHCrstoN MAKrN(i Ambiguity and Irtter¡treluliott I 93
fuscations. The ambiguities are often sources of frustration, sor. ably display consistent decision coherence. Rather than have
row2 and amusement. As men and women try to figure out what
decision processes that proceed from consistent intentions,
gender identities mean and how they relate to other identities...-. identities, and expectations to coordinated decisions and ac-
parent, frieod, executive, soldier, nurse, engineer-they develop tions, organizations exhibit numerous symptoms of incoher-
and interpret the idea of gender as identity. That idéntity is I ence. Decisions seem unconnected to actions, yesterday's ac-
set of social and personal expectations that accumulate Í1e¿1il. tions unconnected to today's actions, justifications unconnected
ing through social experience but are always somewhat fuzry. , to decisions. Beliefs are often unconnected to choices, solutions
.
The gender identity example is familiar to individuals living in unconnected to problems, and processes unconnected to out-
,
contemporary society, but it is simpty one of many identities that comes. Organizations frequently have ambiguous preferences
are continually being developed through social interaction and , and identities, ambiguous experiences and history, ambiguous
experience. Though they provide rules of behavior, and though i technologies, and fluid participation in decision making. They
individuals can be seen reliably as pursuirg one identity or uñr. ,l
are loosely coupled.
other and criticized meaningfully for failing to follow the rule¡ Observations of the loose coupling in org anizational decision
proper|Y,eachidentityisfilledwithambiguifyaboutitsmeoll. making have led some people to argue that there is very little
ing. Each involves constant interpretation and reinterpretation. I order to it, that it is best described as chaos. The attribution of
disorder to experience, however, results from trying to make
5.2.3 Ambiguity and Theories of Decision Making sense of observations within standard theories. Perhaps the
problem of understanding decision'making lies in the fact that
Neith er rational theories of choice nor rule-following theories the ways in which organizations bring order to disorder is dif-
of identity fulfiltment deal particularly well with ambiguity. The ferent from that anticipated by conventional theories. Perhaps
contradictions, inconsistencies, and fuzziness of reality, prefer" there is order, but it is not conventional order. The remainder
;
ences, and identities ate largely ignored. The problems bf um. ''
be unstable over time and place. When decisions are imple- 5.3.3 Talk and Action
mented, many members of the original coalition are likely tó be
busy elsewhere or uninterested in the implementation of the Organizational decision making is a combination of talk and ae-
decisioll. Other members of the coalition, ár *.ll as obsenrers, tion.* Both are important, but talk and action are often loosely
are likely to fantasize a meaning of the original agreement that coupled. Indeed, they are often mutually exclusive rather than
is inattentive to its delibe rate ambiguify. Ambig,riti.r of intol- mutually supportive. Some things are more readily discussed
tions and expectations combine with turnover in attention and than decided. Anyone who has participated in late-evening col*
coalition membership to for ce arenegotiation of support within lege discussions of religion, philosophy, politics, or personal re-
a new set of actors. lationships is aware of the phenomenon at the individual level.
This loose coupling of decision and implementation is accsl- The discussions rarely yield conclusions and are seen more
tuated by the extent to which both decisiot r and actions involve commonly as a combination of social bonding and educational
symbolic commitments. Those who participate in decision mak- development than as an opportunity to resolve issues. Partici-
ing not only pursue personal and group udV*ntage but also per- pants exercise personal intelligence, eXpose personal senti-
sonal and group affirmation. Studies of decision *uking suggest ments, learn arguments, and confirm a common commitment to
that the act of supporting a policy with appropriate symUotic fundamental values.
meanitg can be *óte important to decision makers than its Decision processes in org anizations have many similar prop-
adoption, and its adoption can be more important than its im- erties. They provide arenas for displaying attitudes and coach-
plementation. Decision makers interested in building viable ing beliefs-the fabric of understandings that tie a community
coalitions are likely to seek and find allies who will be ügorous together. Discussions of decisions allow individuals to define,
in supporting symbolic decisions and lax in implementing them. communicate, and enforce virtuous sentiments. They clarify the
Loose couplitg between decisions and theii imple*rñtutions principles by which individuals wish to be guided. Since those
is neither a new phenomenon nor newly discovered. It has been uses of decision processes in constructing meaning will be con-
observed in all kinds of institutions for many years. As a resulto sidered somewhat more fully in section 5.5, only one aspect will
it is reasonable to expect decision making itritit,rtions to have be noted here: This talk of decision making is not always closely
adapted to the realities of ambiguity in policy formation and connected to the action of decisions.
decision making. As those responsible foi imitementation ex- The making of concrete decisions in an organ ization is an ex-
perience ambiguity in decisions, they come to treat decisions as, ercise of practical, contextual judgment. It applies conflicting
palettes for new administrative imagination. They develop tech- principles of ambiguous relevance to specific situations that
niques for elaborating decisions and for developing tt* coali- confound beliefs. Org anizations decide to make some invest-
tions in support of the elaborations. Similarly, decision makers ments rather than others, hire some employees rather than oth-
learn from their experience with imaginativó implementation. ers, set some prices rather than others, settle some disputes and
The skill of implementors in continuing the poliiy debate and continue others. In principle, these specific decisions in specific
coalition formation into the implementátion pttur" encourages situations are derived from some more general decisions about
the use of ambiguity in formulating decisionr and provides a more general situations, sometimes called policies or guide-
handy scapegoat for failures. The mutual learning óf Orcision lines. The derivations, however, are typically not straightfor-
makers and decision implementors is likely to leadto a tenden- ward. Policies are more likely to establish contradictory ten-
cy toward ambiguous decisions and imaginative interpretations
*The tension between talk and action is a favorite topic of Nils Brunsson, and these para-
of them. graphs have profited from his comments (perhaps poorly).
198 A pRtMUR oN DECtstoN MAKTNG +
Arnhi¡4uitv uncl Inleryrrr,tutiott I 99
sions than to resorve ,1"*. policy decisions tlf actors. Any particular decision is a combination of different
to treat emproyees
decently seem to.conflict with p-oti.y decisions
to reduce pay- moments of different lives. Understanding decisions in one arena,
rolls. Poliry decisions to abandón nucrear p*t therefore, requires an understanding of how participation in
r"",o to con-
flict with policy d.""r:19nr to e4pand .rr"rgy policy those decisions fits into the lives of participants. Each life is itself
decisions to sustain full employment seem "r"il"Uilió. embedded in a complex mixture of other activities, concerns,
to conflict with pori-
cy decisions to limit inflation.
and identities that makes a particular decision incomprehen-
Talk and action are roosely coupled, because sible without attention to the full context. It is a daunting task.
talk tends to dear
with principles one at atiméun¿ u"tion tends A more limited version of the same fundamental idea focuses
to deal with many
principles simultaneousry bur onry in u,p".inrri-iü on the allocation of attention. The idea is simple. Individuals
rilution.
Talk achieves cfaltf-bV. ignoring the cómphcations attend to some things, and thus do not attend to others. The at-
of specific
contexts. It reminds decision participants oi tention devoted to á purticular decision by a particular poten-
their beliefs. Action
clarity by iglloring its impiilations for contradicto";: tial participant depends on alternative claims on attention.
.lcfieyes
liefs It sustains the beliefs but bánds them to meet Since those alternative claims are not homogeneous across par-
the exigen-
cies of action, As a rggult, some things that
easily done. other things can be
are easily;á ;r"T; ticipants, and since they change over time, the attention re-
done but ceived by any particular decision can be both unstable and re-
"urily ""i "".ilv,"i¿. markably independent of the properties of the decisiol. The
5.4 Garbage Can Decision processes same decision will attract much attention or little, depending
on the other things that possible participants might be doing.
In an environment characterized by comprex interactions As the distribution of attention changes, so also does the deci-
among actors, solutions, problems, and choice sion. The apparently ercatic cttaracter of decision making is
opportunities,
the simplest source of ordér is that of time.
Activitüs,"";;;: made somewhat more explicable by placing it in this context of
dered in time and connecred by rheir temp".¡,"iáiiárr.-d- multiple changing claims on attention and an order imposed on
poral sorting is commonplace in h"*u"-unui;;;;; that context by time.
occur at the same time are associated with
,h",
each other, Eu";;; Researchers have identified the effects of temporal sorting in
that are distant in time are treated as distant in numerous settings, including military engagements, personnel
Among the many categories available for sorting "onrr".'tiool, and location decisions in universities, accident prevention ef-
p"opf., it irrgr,
activities, or outcomes, temporal categori",
*Jür*ii.;il?;
their ubiquity. In importani ways, deiision pror"rrJ,
forts in business, the setting of agendas in legislative decision
U.ril¿ on,. making, and publications decisions in the textbook industry. All
these temporal categories, combining people, problems,
lutions in terms of their simultaneityl'irroi"
;; sl- of these situations are described as "organized anarchies."
el-ements oít"*po_ There are unclear preferences, and success is often ambiguous.
ral sorting are exemplified in garbíge;*;;t"";;;;;"r. The technolog¡r contains no clear rules for producing success.
And participation in decisions is fluid; there is turnover of deci-
5. 4. 1 Temporal Sorting perspectives sion makers in decision arenas.
solutions' and decision makers to choice opportunities is unre- How should a decision maker behave in a garbage can world?
stricted, the model treats several more restricted cases easily. Decision makers seem to fall into one of three prototypical re-
For examPle, consider the access of decision makers to choice sponse types:
opportunities. In an unsegmented structure, any decision I- Reforrners try to elimin ate garbage can elements from the
maker can have access to any choice opportunity. fn a special- decision process. They see garbage can processes as inherently
206 A t,lrrMrilr 0N DHCtstoN MAKTNC
Arnbiguity and lnterpretutiort 2(17
transition from one state of organizational existence to another This picture of stability and conservation of belief is substan-
(promotion, retirement) or from one set of loyalties to another tially correct, but reliability is not assured. Some inferences
(transfers, reassignments). Rituals of consulta;ion, analysis, from history ate not recorded. Routines, rules, beliefs, and sto*
dis.'
cussion, and choice surround the process of decision ries ate sometimes ambiguous, requiring interpretation that
-áting.
leads to inconsistencies and gradual transformation of mean-
storícs- stories are tales of what is happening, what has ittg. Different individuals have different experiences and differ-
hap.
pened, or what might They are-elaboiations ent theories for interpreting those experiences. The differences
of e4pla.
nations of why thingslappen.
happen. They are the fuel of decision are often organized into active subcultures. As those subcul-
making and of social life more getr"rá[y. Most of what indiüdu. tures act internally to sustain their own internal inte grity, they
als know about the world comes in thá form of stories are likely to support differentiation in interpretation within the
told to
them_by others. some of those stories are created uy ptoies- larger sociefy. In particular, conflicts of interest or world view
sional storytellers: journalists, writers, teachers. othérs stabilize conflicting interpretations in subgroups" Conflict over
are a
part of daily discourse. public relations departments try meaning is as socially based as is agreement.
to tell
stories that cast a good light on events. otñ"r, developi To say that meaning is socially constructed is not to say that it
clien-
tele for stories that define events in terms of üle motives, can be arbitrarily transformed. On the one hand, meaning is
con-
spiracy, and corruption. As storytellers compete for contested. One vision competes with another. At the same time,
attention
and approval, stories about decisions are molded to match the contest occurs within a historical path of beliefs and inter-
tho
intellectual and emotional needs of the listeners. wi"""r, pretations. The contempor ary meaning of Catholicism in
courage stories that describe events in terms of virtue
reward."nl Guatemala reflects not only the outcomes of competition be-
ed. I osers encourage stories ofvillainy and perverse gods. tween Mayan rulers and Spanish conquistadors but atrso the way
,
which the gullible are misled into acquiescence, as the basis for
uít tie best of ,
manipulation of the unwary by the clever. Such pictures are in-
them, like the best of judges, use language
to evoke deeper complete. Although there is no question that symbols, myths,
meanings.
and rituals are often used strategically, it is hard to imagine a
world of decision making that would be free of symbolic mean-
5.5.2 The Synbolic Importance of Decision
Making ,
ing. It is hard to imagine sustaining human motivation and at-
The meanings elaborated in decision making tention to decision making without linking it symbolically to
have importance
beyond the mundane realities of rendering deeply felt sentiments. And it is hard to imagine a society with
Jecisions. bl"irion.
making and the acfivilies surrounding it hñe.orrriO"ruUt" modern ideology that would not exhibit a well-elaborated and
bolic importance. rn the course or ñating
r'rn- reinforced myth of choice, both to sustain social orderliness and
decisions, á""irion
makersdevelop and communicate meanin! meaning and to facilitate change.
not only uUo"t ¿r-
cisions but also more generalry about truth, Consider, for example, acquisition decisions of a business
about what it is
happening in the world and why ir is happeil;. firm, tactical decisions of a military org anization, research de-
wfiat is morally important and what is proper
iherl"nne sign decisions in a research organization, personnel decisions in
uitraviór. They
e-laborate a language of understanding a school system, or diagnostic decisions in a medical org aniza-
and describe how ac-
tions.ar-e properry e4plained and justifieá. tion or an automobile repair shop These occasions are not just
They uttocui" urr¿ ¿e-
fine individual worth-who is pLwerfur, *rro'ir-r-"ri occasions for deciding what to do. They are also occasions for
virtuous. Thus, the process affeóts individual
*i" i, talking about what goals the organization should pursue, what
self-esteem and standing. It helps to mold "rd;;ñ;;utionur makes an argument legitim ate, who is a smart analyst, who is
and susiain a sociat
order of friendships and antagonisrns, trust tough, who is not, who is sensitive and who is not, who supports
and distrust.
whom, how a decision maker talks, thinks, and acts. Uncler-
214 A pRtMER oN DECrsroN MAKTNG Ambiguity and Interpretation 215
standitg a decision and a decision process involves seeing and for validation of the social order. I)ecision processes are
how
these symbolic meanings pervade décision making. opportunities for individuals to exhibit personal attributes of
organizational or cultural importance. They show their intelli-
THE MEANINGS OF DECISION OUTCOMES gence, their cleverness, their coolness. They demonstrate their
Decisions gain symbolic meaning from their outcomes interpersonal attractiveness. They proclaim their values-ot
and
from their processes. The meanings of decision outcomes least those of their values that are highly cherished socially.
arg
most commonly associated with the standings of people, Where such things are important, occasions for decision mak-
groups, and causes. Every contested choice dividés partüipantc ing will be created to provide opportunities for exhibiting and
into winners and losers. fn this sense , dtleast, decision process. enjoying proper behavior. Potential outcasts will be inclined to
es are basically forms of trial by combat-tests of strength withdraw from the process rather than risk exposure of their
and
standittg for the various participants. The phenomenon lack of social graces, thereby reducing the risks of unpleasant-
is illus,
trated by contempor ary journalistic accounts of politi cal ness. Participants are likely not to recall substantive outcomes
or but to remember the process associated with it.
business decision making in the United States. Such
reportsr;; An individual's participation in decision making intertwines
overwhelmingly oriented to describing winners and lóers
in a these personal messages with substantive policy positions. The
presumed struggle for primacy: "The President has
suffered a
defeat." "The merger is a victory for the cEo.,, former should not be viewed as inimical to the latter, but an in-
The trial-by-combat symbolism of decision making holds par. dividual's decision making performance is often dictated more
ticularly true for cultures (such as traditional male culture) by presentation-of-self requirements than by a substantive con-
in cern about decision content. As a result, personal styles tend to
which the world is ordered by domination/subordination
rela,
tions and pecking orders of strength or power. Where pecking be more stable than personal positions on issues. Personal
order is important, occasions for decision *uking will bf styles also tend to vary more as a function of the audience than
creat-
ed in order to provide opportunities for establishing personal as a function of the topic under discussion.
standitg, and patticipants in a particular decision sitiution Because decision arenas are sites for presentation of the self,
will they naturally also become sites for educating and socializing
recall who won more easily than they will recall what
the sub-,
stantive outcome was. Potential losers will be inclined the young. People come to build an image of themselves
to with.
draw from the contest rather than risk exposure of their through participation in decision processes, through observing
weak.
nesses' thereby making agreement appear to be
_
and mimicking the behavior of valued others. A future manager
more general
than it is. learns how to behave as a manager. A young faculty member
Domination/subordination visions of social relations aÍe) learns how to talk like a faculty member. Decision making is a
of public opportunity to exhibit proper attitudes and to give ap-
course, not the only possible visiolls. Rather than see
decision
outcomes as reflecting victories in a test of strength, it is probation to them.
possible
to see them as exhibiting affiliation, cooperatiod and uróo*r¡o- Since decisions ate educational forums, many problems take
dation. Then outcomes are interpreted in terms of the on importance because they are discussible rather than because
.*trnt to they are necessarily solvable. This is a gener,ally recognizecl f.cu-
which they reflect the affiliative ,huructer of the group.
ture of college bull sessions on ethics, equity, and intim¿ttc rcl¡t-
THE MEANINGS OF DECISION PROCESSES tionships. It is also a common strategy in universities in trrtining
research workers and social analysts. It gives underst¿tncling ttl
Like decision outcomes, decision processes exhibit and comrnu. discussions among business managers about thc murkct, tlrc
nicate meanings. They are occasions fcr the presentation firm, politics, and thc future.
of self
216 A pRTMERoN DrcrstoN MAKTNc Amhi¡¡uity and Interpretatbn 217
DECISIONS AND SOCIAL REASSURANCE
school.T The school was created by a group of parents with a
In a society based on faith and revelation, the church is strong ideology emphasizing the creation of a socialist society,
a sacred
institution. It synbolizes the glorification of the gods direct democracy, and nonintellective skills. The ideology was
and tho
subordination of human will to divine guidance."In a important to the parents. It connected their children and-them-
society
based on reason, rationality, and a conóeption of intentional selves to a vision of a way of life, to their self-perceptions as de-
human control over destiny, decision making is a sacreJ viant members of an oppressive society, and to their commit-
activi-
f. 3" wgrld is imagined to be produced by deliberare human ments to education and to their children. When a particular
action ald responsive to human intention. Intention is imag. curriculum decision in the school was made, most people (par-
ined to be transformed into action through choice *a po*rr, ents, faculty, students) connected to the school were invoived
And choice is imagined to be guided by reason. heavily in the discussions and debate. The arguments were
These traditions of rationalism and anthropocentrism highly elaborated, deeply felt, and passionately expressed. After
find
mythic and ritual manifestation in the idea of djecision extended and forceful debate, a decision was taken. The strik-
making.
As a result, the process of making a choice in a modern ing thing about the decisior, however, was that it was never im-
settirig
is surrounded with as much symbolic and ritual paraphernalia plemented. People who participated passionately in the discus-
a¡ tfe diüning of God's will in the Middle Ages. ^tt sion and who insisted on the decision were essentially
¡tu¿s of
choice tie routine events to beliefs about the-nature" indifferent to its implementation. In this case, &t least, the deci-
or rrringr.
They give meaning. They emphasize the centrality of sion process was much more connected to the generation of re-
human
agency-humans are responsible for choices and ihus assurance than to the generation of a substantive action.
for thc
course of history. They validate that the world is organized
uy ,
It is a story that fits-perhaps in somewhat less pure form-
choice. throughout decision making. The processes of choice reassure
The social interaction that is a pafiof a decision process those involved that the choice has been made intelligently; that
is
alsoimportantinprovidingmoreJpecificsocial'"u'*'un."ü it reflects plannitg, thinkirg, analysis, and the systematic use of
decision makers, reassurance that ihey have aoo" prope, information; that people have acted appropriately as decision
and
jtrst things. Social beliefs are validat"a uy urg,r*"oi makers; that the choice is sensitive to the concerns of relevant
.o'nfi*u.
tion, and information gathering. Decision.ik"r, urt ro, people; and that the right people are involved. At the same
*oJ,
information than they could conceivably use. Though time, the processes of choice reassure those involved of their
tt"y ruu-
sequent$ ignore the content, the act of gathering Information own significance. fn particular, the processes are used to rein-
provides reassurance that they have acteá prop"ity. force the idea that decision makers and their decisions affect
collective
decision making meetings allow participanis tó ,"ú""rr" the course of history, and do so properly.
argu-
ments and to develop justifications. Groups often
considerable discussion even after adecision has been"rrgugJin
made or
could be made. This "irrerevant" discussion provides 5.5.3 Life as Interpretation
an oppor-
tunity for joint development of rationarizatións, but it also pro.
Theories of choice usually assume that a decision process is to
vides an opportunity for individuars to reduce ih"i, o*r,
inter- be understood in terms of its outcoffie, that decision makers
nal uncertainty about difficult decisions.
enter the process in order to affect outcomes, and that the point
Reassurance is particularry important when there
is ambigui- of life is choice. The emphasis is instrumental; the central con-
ty. The point is illustrated by a study of a Danish erementary
ceit is the notion of decision significance. As the construction of
218 A PRIMER oN DECISIoN MAKTNG
Ambiguity and Interprelatbn 219
meanittg in decision making has been explored in this chapter,
the argument has been developed that a choice process áoe¡ direct than is assumed in conventional theories; garbage can
decision processes and other forms of temporal sorting coll-
<aa