The Garbage Can Model (GCM) is an organizational theory developed by Michael D. Cohen, James G. March, and Johan P. Olsen in 1972. This framework suggests that the decision-making process in certain organizational settings is often less a product of rational, linear calculation and more an accidental outcome of timing and coincidence. The GCM proposes that many organizational choices are made without clear goals or a full understanding of the process, highlighting the role of randomness in institutional action.
Defining the Organized Anarchy
The GCM explains decision-making within an organizational context the authors termed the “organized anarchy.” This environment is characterized by high levels of ambiguity and chaos, contrasting sharply with highly structured, goal-oriented organizations. Organizations fitting this description operate with three defining characteristics that undermine traditional rational models.
These characteristics are:
Problematic Preferences
The organization lacks clear, consistent, or shared goals, often discovering its preferences through action rather than acting based on pre-defined preferences.
Unclear Technology
Members do not fully understand the process by which problems are solved, creating an ill-defined connection between actions and outcomes.
Fluid Participation
Decision-makers constantly drift in and out of the process, with their time and attention shifting. The cumulative effect of these properties is an environment where the decision process is highly unpredictable and loosely coupled.
The Four Independent Streams
Decision-making is conceptualized as the confluence of four distinct and relatively independent streams that flow separately throughout the organization. These streams only interact when they intersect at a specific point in time and space.
The four independent streams are:
- Problems: Issues and concerns requiring attention, which consume focus and are often perceived rather than objectively defined.
- Solutions: Answers or technologies that are often pre-existing and looking for a problem to solve. A solution, such as a new software system or a policy proposal, can exist long before a corresponding problem is identified.
- Participants: Individuals with varying levels of time, energy, and attention available for decision-making. Because their involvement is fluid, the mix of decision-makers changes constantly.
- Choice Opportunity: The metaphorical “garbage can” itself. These are specific occasions or meetings, such as a committee meeting or a budget hearing, where the organization is expected to produce a decision.
The choice opportunity serves as the arena into which the other three streams are dumped as they are generated. These four streams are generally unconnected and only converge when timing and chance align.
The Collision: How Decisions Are Made
The core mechanism of the GCM centers on the unpredictable collision of the four independent streams within a choice opportunity. A decision does not result from a structured, step-by-step analysis, but rather from the haphazard timing of elements arriving together. A decision is made when a solution happens to be linked to a problem by a participant who has the time and energy to focus on that specific choice opportunity.
This process is non-rational, as problems may be attached to solutions that do not truly address the underlying issue, or solutions may be applied simply because they are currently available. The mix of problems and solutions depends on what is currently being generated and the speed at which decision-makers move on. The timing of entry and exit for all four streams is a major determinant of the resulting decision, emphasizing that organizational choices are sensitive to the temporal dynamics of the environment.
Key Outcomes of Garbage Can Decisions
When the independent streams collide in a choice opportunity, there are three possible decision outcomes:
Resolution
This occurs when a problem is successfully solved by a solution and a decision is reached. This outcome is often considered rare within the organized anarchy context.
Oversight or Flight
The choice opportunity closes before a decision can be reached, or a problem leaves the current “garbage can” unsolved, moving on to attach itself to another future choice opportunity.
Decision by Flight
A decision is made, but the original problem remains unsolved. This happens because the problem has either departed the choice opportunity or been attached to a solution that addresses a different issue entirely.
Practical Applications and Modern Relevance
The Garbage Can Model remains relevant today, especially in organizations that struggle with clear goals and processes. The model is particularly applicable to higher education institutions, which were the original focus of the authors’ study, where faculty and administration often operate with problematic preferences and fluid participation.
Public policy and government agencies also exhibit this decision-making style, as policy solutions and political problems constantly seek a legislative or budgetary choice opportunity to converge. Research and development departments, particularly in large technology firms, frequently resemble organized anarchies where solutions (new technologies) exist long before a commercial problem is identified. Startups during periods of rapid, unstructured growth also experience the GCM. For instance, a university committee deciding on a new curriculum may adopt a new technology simply because a participant is advocating for it, rather than because a clear educational problem has been articulated and solved.
Limitations of the Model
The Garbage Can Model possesses certain limitations. The model is primarily descriptive, explaining what happens in chaotic organizational environments, rather than prescriptive, offering managers little guidance on how to improve decision-making. Critics suggest the model tends to overamplify the chaotic nature of decision-making, potentially oversimplifying organizational complexity.
The framework may not apply effectively to highly structured, profit-driven corporate environments. In these settings, efficiency, clear hierarchical goals, and market demands impose greater constraints on choice. The model’s focus on non-rationality can also obscure intentional political maneuvering and strategic behavior by participants who seek to exploit the ambiguity.