Our discussion of “The Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice” by Cohen, March, & Olsen, concludes as the podcasters offer their reflections. The model was provocative for its time, what have learned in the forty years since now that the garbage can model is better understood and accepted as common practice in organizations?
During Episode 39 we explore a famous 1972 article in Administrative Science Quarterly from Cohen, March, and Olsen on the Garbage Can Model of Decision Making, which contained (above all things) a fully-documented computer program written in FORTRAN 66! The sidecast also included details of how they designed the program what its outputs were.
As we discuss during the podcast, this was far from an empirical study. They designed the model solely for exploratory purposes—to demonstrate an interesting concept that could apply to actual organizations such as colleges and universities of various sizes. It struck me because present-day articles devote so little time to the models in use, either mentioning minimal details in the text or providing a summary or introduction to them in an appendix. Certainly not something that could be replicated as is copy-pasted from the journal.
Our discussion of “The Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice” by Cohen, March, & Olsen, continues as the podcasters discuss the technical aspects of the model and its implications for modern practice.
Please join us for the fourth episode in our series of podcasts focused on works from the Carnegie-Mellon School. For this episode, the podcasters tackle “The Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice” by Michael Cohen, James March, and Johan Olsen, published in Adninistrative Science Quarterly in 1972. The article was a radical departure from conventional thinking about choice and decision making at the time, where leaders identified problems and applied solutions rationally. Instead, the authors asserted that an organization was “a collection of choices looking for problems, issues and feelings looking for decision situations in which they might be aired, solutions looking for issues to which they might be the answer, and decision makers looking for work.”
Our discussion of John Van Maanen's "Police Socialization" concludes with a more in-depth look at his methodology and use of 'covert' methods. As a participant-observer, Van Maanen's study included his participation in police training and joining patrols. Covert research challenges the principle of informed consent but may be necessary for conduct research on populations that are otherwise difficult to access. Through a very recent article by Thomas Roulet, et al. in Organizational Research Methods, the podcasters discuss the pros and cons of such methods and the ethical questions raised. You won't want to miss it!
Please join us as we continue our discussion of John Van Maanen's article, "Police Socialization: A Longitudinal Examination of Job Attitudes in an Urban Police Department." For Part 2, the podcasters look to other, more contemporary settings where similar socialization activities occur. How has our growing understanding of socialization shaped organizational life since 1975 when this article was written? How has ethnographic research evolved? Find out here!
Please join us as TAOP returns in 2018 to open a New Year with a discussion of John Van Maanen's classic work from 1975, "Police Socialization: A Longitudinal Examination of Job Attitudes in an Urban Police Department." In Part 1, Pedro, Dmitrijs, Tom and Miranda introduce the article - what Van Maanen tried to accomplish and, more importantly, how. The result was a major step forward in ethnographic research!
In part 3 of our conversation about Xenophon's Oeconomicus we summarise the preceding two parts and underline the value, as well as the limitations, of drawing on a text as old as Oeconomicus for understanding contemporary issues (both in management and in philosophy!)
Please join us for part 2 as we discuss the implications of reading such an ancient text as Oeconomicus in context of contemporary management. Learn more about Socrates and Ancient Greece from Peter, and listen to us deliberate on the values, parallels and differences between management now and at the onset of Western civilization!
Please join us as we welcome Professor Peter Adamson of the LMU in Munich and the amazing History of Philosophy without any Gaps Podcast to discuss Xenophon's Oeconomicus. The book conveys an Ancient Greek dialogue between Socrates and a young wealthy man named Critobulus who seeks to expand his wealth. Part 1 presents the background of the book and the main ideas it espouses. What was Xenophon trying to say through the characters; how do we begin to relate such an ancient text to modern understandings of organization; and, most importantly, why are we reading this archaic work on a podcast about management and organization studies? Tune in to find out!