Decision Dynamics in Two High Reliability Military Organizations

In this research we extend theoretical development about decision making in organizations in which many kinds of errors cannot be tolerated. Catastrophic consequences can be associated with faulty decision making in reliability-seeking organizations, a situation which does not occur in most organizations studied in the past. Observations are drawn from two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. We find decision processes which appear to change often in these organizations. Important decisions can be made by a number of men even at the lowest levels of the organization. Task-related factors such as technical complexity, high interdependence, and catastrophic consequences associated with rare events and more cognitive factors such as accountability and salience affect decision processes. A model is presented that accounts for dynamic change in decision processes in these organizations.

[1]  P. V. Riper,et al.  The Balance between centralization and decentralization in managerial control , 1956 .

[2]  C. Lindblom.  THE SCIENCE OF MUDDLING THROUGH , 1959 .

[3]  J. March,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm , 1964 .

[4]  E. Johnsen.  Richard M. Cyert & James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of The Firm, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, 332 s. , 1964 .

[5]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[6]  G. Allison,et al.  Essence of Decision , 1971 .

[7]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. , 1972 .

[8]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  The Structure of "Unstructured" Decision Processes , 1976 .

[9]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[10]  R. Abelson.  Psychological status of the script concept. , 1981 .

[11]  P. Tetlock.  Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions. , 1983 .

[12]  P. Tetlock.  Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. , 1985 .

[13]  George P. Huber,et al.  The Decision-Making Paradigm of Organizational Design , 1986 .

[14]  Gene I. Rochlin.  ``High-Reliability'' Organizations and Technical Change: Some Ethical Problems and Dilemmas , 1986, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.

[15]  Frances J. Milliken,et al.  Challenger: Fine-Tuning the Odds Until Something Breaks , 1988 .

[16]  Jennifer J. Halpern.  Cognitive factors influencing decision making in a highly reliable organization , 1989 .

[17]  Gene I. Rochlin,et al.  Informal organizational networking as a crisis- avoidance strategy: US naval flight operations as a case study , 1989 .

[18]  K. Roberts.  Some Characteristics of One Type of High Reliability Organization , 1990 .

[19]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Task Revision: A Neglected Form of Work Performance , 1990 .

[20]  T. Laporte,et al.  Working in Practice But Not in Theory: Theoretical Challenges of “High-Reliability Organizations” , 1991 .

[21]  Denise M. Rousseau,et al.  The culture of high reliability: quantitative and qualitative assessment aboard nuclear-powered aircraft carriers , 1994 .