Dear Jack, there is no doubt that actual decision making in firms often do
not correspond to "normative models." People evidence all sorts of
decision biases not factored into those models. Jay Warner said
"impractical" theories are the ones that don't give us the answer we want.
Robin Dawes pointed out the decision making confirmation bias 25 years ago,
and Tversky and Kahneman, Hogart, Einhorn and as host of others have
focused on a host of other biases. I agree that Vic's model is overly
complicated and that people do not revise their estimates according to
Bayes Theorem. Expected Value models are not useful for making one short
decisons, etc., I could go on. In fact, I hope that when we teach decision
making, planning, or any other "rational" process we make our students
aware of the differences between normative and descriptive models that
treat decision makers as multi-dimensional human beings with values, wants,
and emotions. (In defense, I don't think it is Management Professors who
commit the sins of assuming "supra-rationality" and "emotional neutrality"
when teaching about organizations. On the other hand I will not defend my
Finace colleagues.)
I guess I am among those who tend to treat the human and social capital
embedded in people as a source, if not the prime source, of comptitive
advantage, and thus treat people as a resource/capability. I don't know if
looking at them as "sources of enthusiasm" is that much different.
Regards, Kim
At 09:47 AM 4/10/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Kim,
>
>As a "first thing that comes to mind" response to your request, I have
>observed that the most impractical theory taught in management education
>concerns the method(s) of arriving at best decisions. Although I am a great
>fan of Vic Vroom's Decision Situations and of Bayesian Belief Network
>techniques, I am really impressed by Gary Klein's Natural Decision Model
>(c.f. his book, Sources of Power) as contrasted to the Analytic Decision
>Model . As near as I can discern more than 90% of decision making courses
>emphasize the Analytic form whereas more than 90% of actual decisions are
>made by the Natural form.
>
>There are other impractical theories such as every "theory of the firm"
>which considers humans as resources rather than the sources of enthusiasm
>thus innovation. But one might be able to close the gap of arriving at
>decisions.
>
>>
>> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:12:09 -0500
>> From: Kim Boal <
KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
>> Subject: Management Edexverythingcation
>> Dear Friends,
>>
>> [...]I am curious about what
>> "impractical" theories you were taught? Were they theories about
>> strategy, leadership, motivation, job attitudes, conflict and power, or
>> what?
>
--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu