You are on page 1of 2

The second set of questions I want to talk about concern whether the logic of consequence, and the logic

of appropriateness are used, Sequentially or you transition across them, Or whether they can be used conterminously or combined in some way. And this comes from Alistair's question of do organizations naturally transition from a logic of consequence to a logic of appropriateness over time? And from Shirley's question which is... Can decisions involve both the logic of appropriateness and consequence? And, I, I think that, the answer is yes. These are two modes of rationalization, right? And it's feasible that, that firms can switch between them and they can even imbed them in certain ways. So just to give you an example of, some of you talked about how I can confront a new problem where I don't have known solutions, right? I mean, or at least I can predict, but then I make a decision on, on consequence basis, and it goes well, And so the next time I see that problem, I'm going to enact it again as a rule. And in that case a logical consequence becomes kind of a logic of appropriateness. So we do see this kind of behaviour best practices learned. Which I think Elizabeth mentions in her post and I think that was a very insightful comment. There are some complications to it a, a little bit to how we do these sequences and that I do think that it's not always that rule following second. You know, it could be first in some cases. That we think about what the general, the most appropriate, identity, and its matches, in terms of some general class of behaviors, right? And then we think within that class of behavior, we, we have various options of action and we think about their consequences and decide within those. And this is kind of what Loddy did under Shirley's question where she talked about the logic of appropriateness, setting general rules or goals that we match on, And then within that set the, of standard operating procedures we weigh them, in terms of which one has the best consequence, And she talks about that with regard to

the national park that she works with. So that was a kinda of a neat example of the reverse kind of sequence of sorts. But, you can also think of it as a hierarchical embedding of one logic within the other. I think it's also important to think that, that rule following can be somewhat perspective, in a way. It's not always reactive. I can, I can look to other firms outside of my firm, And it's not just my own experiences that I rely on in terms of finding matches with identities in standard operating procedures. I can look around at what other companies do and borrow from them in a logic of appropriateness way. And more than that the application of rules and matching isn't always static or, or fixed, We adapt them, We, we find misfits in terms of the Cuban missile crisis and the naval blockade it was, it was misapplied at least from one standpoint of the administration, And they had to adapt it. So we do see this kind of adjustment going on with the logic of appropriateness. I, I don't think many, many of us, kind of often, consider. In the case of Shirley's question, Michael had a good example, how the logic of consequence You kind of, you begin with that and then the logic of appropriateness is used as an afterthought as kind of a check. So in the case of a military you may think of all the, the optimal option, of action in terms of success, But then, check it in terms of whether you are violating the Geneva Conventions or, or some kind of, of violation of code. We actually see this in a lot of, Other organizations. Not just the military in terms of when you are hiring in United States, We, we often try to find the best candidate, and we then we make sure after the fact, that hopefully we are following, diversity considerations. That we weren't prejudice in, in our sampling of these individuals, and that we checked every outlet, Or vice-versa in a lot of cases we try to do that first.

You might also like