carnegie school

jacquiline

和猪之哥同学交流很开心，刚刚聊到carnegie school。欢迎大家参与讨论，拍砖。

Carnegie School如名字发端于在卡耐基梅隆大学（以及之前的工学院）的几名教授和他们关于行为经济学和decision making的研究，主要的早期著作包括Simon 1947 Administrative Behavior, March & Simon 1958 Organizations / Cyert and March, 1963 A Behavioral Theory of the Firm。他们的主要目的是想了解和考察个人和组织在真实世界里是如何做决策的，从而挑战古典经济学中决策的最优化和最大化的假设。两个重要的概念是bounded rationality and satisficing，都出现在1958年的绿皮书里（with Guetzkow）。

他们当初的想法是在福特基金会的号召上为经理人提供可以参考的手册，所以书中有大量的可实证的关于decision making的和hypotheses or propositions；这也成为了行为学派的开端。他们也促成了OT里面一个跨cognitive science, sociology, psychology, economics等学科的一个流派，强调decision making过程中的ambiguity, uncertainty, norms, routines, learning and satisficing，对于后来的TCE以及evolutionary economics (Nelson & Winter, 1982)都有不可磨灭的影响。

卡耐基学派早期的研究突出组织的社会性，着眼于组织内部个人和小组的互动和coordination，强调个人、小组、组织和外部环境的多层链接，认为组织是adaptive system，是动员资源、在合作和竞争共存的状态下实现个人、小组和组织的存活。你可以想象一个大学内部不同的系所之间的合作和竞争，既要为整个大学的生存和名誉努力，也要为自己个别系所的突出而争夺资源；在系所内部个人也有同样的逻辑。这样的话，组织的行为和结果中最重要的一环就是decision making，建立在不同的premise的基础上。

然后一个至关重要的概念，也是为什么simon拿到诺贝尔经济学奖的原因就是bounded rationailty。经理人如何做决定呢，按照neoclassical economics的观点，应该把所有的可能性和preferences都考虑到，摆到面前，然后按照最大化和最优化utility来做决定，所谓的rational。但是simon说，这是不可能的。人的认知能力和决定的迫切性已经决定了这个rationality是bounded的。大多数决定都不是最大或者最优，而是satisficing以及search for alternatives and minimal aspiration levels。卡耐基学派强调standard operating procedure的重要性。

如果简要的概括一下的话：我觉得carnegie讲究bounded rationality；组织内部的hierarchical structure以及相应的information flows and chains of communication；公司内部基于politics and interests的coalition的存在(competition and cooperation共存)；还有search and performance feedback对于decision making的影响。

March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. 1958. Organizations.
Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. 1963.A behavioral theory of the firm. 尤其是Chapter 7: A summary of basic concepts.
Cohen, M.D., March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 1-25.
Levitt, B. & March, J. G. 1988. Organizational Learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14:319-340.
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71-87.

carnegie school后面的发展的话，org. learning很重要，其中levinthal, gavetti, greve, argote都有一些贡献。
Greve, H. R. 2003. Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback: A Behavioral Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Levinthal, D. A., J. G. March. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management J. 14(Winter) 95–112.
Gavetti, G., D. Levinthal. 2000. Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(1) 113–137.

附件：Gavetti, Giovanni; Levinthal, Daniel; Ocasio, William (2007). "erspective -- Neo-Carnegie: The Carnegie School's Past, Present, and Reconstructing for the Future". Organization Science 18 (3): 523–536.

jacquiline

差一点忘了这个，
Chester Barnard 1938 The Functions of the Executive。
http://www.amazon.com/The-Functions-Executive-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0674328035

Simon的很多东西都承袭于Barnard-“一个并不成功的经理人@AT&T，确是用通俗易懂的语言来描述企业内部的大家”。

猪之哥

先大赞J教主，膜拜啊！

猪之哥

再补充点我刚才查到的资料，以下全部是他人观点：

Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice:
It was developed in reference to "ambiguous behaviors", i.e. explanations/interpretations of behaviors which at least appear to contradict classical theory. The G.C.M. was greatly influenced by the realization that extreme cases of aggregate uncertainty in decision environments would trigger behavioral responses which, at least from a distance, appear "irrational" or at least not in compliance with the total/global rationality of "economic man" (e.g. "act first, think later"). The G.C.M. was originally formulated in the context of the operation of universities and their many inter-departmental communications problems.....
The garbage can model tried to expand organizational decision theory into the then uncharted field of organizational anarchy which is characterized by "problematic preferences", "unclear technology" and "fluid participation". "The theoretical breakthrough of the garbage can model is that it disconnects problems, solutions and decision makers from each other, unlike traditional decision theory. Specific decisions do not follow an orderly process from problem to solution, but are outcomes of several relatively independent streams of events within the organization." (Richard L. Daft, 1982, p.139).

Four of those streams were identified in Cohen, March & Olsen's original conceptualization:

Problems require attention, and they are the result of performance gaps or the inability to predict the future. Thus, problems may originate inside or outside the organization. Traditionally, it has been assumed that problems trigger decision processes; if they are sufficiently grave, this may happen. Usually, however, organization man goes through the "garbage" and looks for a suitable fix.... called a "solution".

Solutions have a life on their own. They are distinct from problems which they might be called on to solve. Solutions are answers (more or less actively) looking for a question. Participants may have ideas for solutions; they may be attracted to specific solutions and volunteer to play the advocate. Only trivial solutions do not require advocacy and preparations. Significant solutions have to be prepared without knowledge of the problems they might have to solve.

Choice opportunities are occasions when organizations are expected (or think they are expected) to produce behavior that can be called a decision (or an "initiative"). Just like politicians cherish "photo opportunities", organization man needs occasional "decision opportunities" for reasons unrelated to the decision itself.

Participants come and go; participation varies between problems and solutions. Participation may vary depending on the other time demands of participants (independent from the particular "decision" situation under study). Participants may have favorite problems or favorite solutions which they carry around with them...

Why "garbage cans"? It was suggested that organizations tend to produce many "solutions" which are discarded due to a lack of appropriate problems. However problems may eventually arise for which a search of the garbage might yield fitting solutions.
Probably the most extreme view (namely that of organizational anarchy) of the Carnegie School. Organizations operate on the basis of inconsistent and ill-defined preferences; their own processes are not understood by their members; they operate by trial and error; their boundaries are uncertain and changing; decision-makers for any particular choice change capriciously. To understand organizational processes, one can view choice opportunities as garbage cans into which various kinds of problems and solutions are dumped. The mix of garbage depends on the mix of labeled cans available, on what garbage is currently produced and the speed with which garbage and garbage cans are removed.

jacquiline

Sarah Sarasvathy的effectuation也是从garbage can来的，如果看她的AMR 2001就银一目了然了。

http://www.effectuation.org