In the case of Deepwater Horizon, both models play a role in the tragedy. The garbage can model comes from a combination of four different aspects of the active process; problems, solutions, participants and better opportunities (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). Whereas, the normative model argues that the decision makers stay bound by the notions of rationality that limit the wrong decision-making process (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). In addition, the eight decision-making biases, if implemented correctly, will help avoid making bad decision-making. The biases are availability heuristic, representativeness heuristic, confirmation bias, anchoring bias, overconfidence bias, hindsight bias, framing bias, and escalation of commitment bias. (p. Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013, 335-337).
…show more content…
Both companies displayed normative and garbage can model decision-making. For example, they wanted to keep the pressure low without knowing exactly how excessive the pressure levels were in the first place (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). Clearly, this is the reason they ignored the steps of the garbage can model, looking only at the solution to the problem rather than reinventing a solution. This was the first specific bias, overconfidence and the tendency to be too confident in their projected estimates. Furthermore, in the case of Deepwater Horizon, they did not have a reliable solution to the problem. For instance, both companies were reactive instead of proactive in identifying any issues, and both companies refused to work together to address the problems. Another example, they never shut the well down when they got the warning signs, this is clear evidence of framing and overconfidence on their
Both companies displayed normative and garbage can model decision-making. For example, they wanted to keep the pressure low without knowing exactly how excessive the pressure levels were in the first place (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). Clearly, this is the reason they ignored the steps of the garbage can model, looking only at the solution to the problem rather than reinventing a solution. This was the first specific bias, overconfidence and the tendency to be too confident in their projected estimates. Furthermore, in the case of Deepwater Horizon, they did not have a reliable solution to the problem. For instance, both companies were reactive instead of proactive in identifying any issues, and both companies refused to work together to address the problems. Another example, they never shut the well down when they got the warning signs, this is clear evidence of framing and overconfidence on their