370
个编辑
更改
跳到导航
跳到搜索
第45行：
第45行： − Simon's three stages in Rational Decision Making: Intelligence, Design, Choice (IDC)+ − − 西蒙理性决策的三个阶段: 智力，设计，选择(IDC) − − {{Main|Administrative Behavior}} − − [[File:Simons 3 stages in Decision Making.gif|thumb|320px|alt=Simon's 3 stages in Rational Decision Making: Intelligence, Design, Choice (IDC)|Simon's three stages in Rational Decision Making: Intelligence, Design, Choice (IDC)]] − − Administrative Behavior, first published in 1947, and updated across the years was based on Simon's doctoral dissertation. It served as the foundation for his life's work. The centerpiece of this book is the behavioral and cognitive processes of humans making rational choices, that is, decisions. By his definition, an operational administrative decision should be correct and efficient, and it must be practical to implement with a set of coordinated means. − − 行政行为》 ，1947年第一次出版，多年来不断更新，是基于西蒙的《博士论文。这是他一生工作的基础。这本书的核心是人类做出理性选择的行为和认知过程，也就是决定。按照他的定义，一个可操作的行政决策应该是正确的和有效的，并且必须是实用的，以一套协调的手段来执行。 − − − − − − − − − − Any given individual or organization attempting to implement this model in a real situation would be unable to comply with the three requirements. Simon argued that knowledge of all alternatives, or all consequences that follow from each alternative is impossible in many realistic cases.}} − − 任何试图在实际情况下实现这个模型的特定个人或组织都无法满足这三个要求。认为，在许多现实的案例中，不可能知道所有的备选方案，或者每个备选方案产生的所有后果。} − − − − Simon therefore, describes work in terms of an economic framework, conditioned on human cognitive limitations: Economic man and Administrative man. − − 因此，西蒙用一个经济框架来描述工作，这个框架以人类的认知局限为条件: 经济人和管理人。 − − − − Administrative Behavior addresses a wide range of human behaviors, cognitive abilities, management techniques, personnel policies, training goals and procedures, specialized roles, criteria for evaluation of accuracy and efficiency, and all of the ramifications of communication processes. Simon is particularly interested in how these factors influence the making of decisions, both directly and indirectly. − − 行政行为涉及范围广泛的人类行为、认知能力、管理技巧、人事政策、培训目标和程序、专业角色、准确性和效率的评估标准，以及沟通过程的所有分支。西蒙特别感兴趣的是这些因素如何直接或间接地影响决策的制定。 − − − − Simon argued that the two outcomes of a choice require monitoring and that many members of the organization would be expected to focus on adequacy, but that administrative management must pay particular attention to the efficiency with which the desired result was obtained. − − Simon 认为，一个选择的两个结果需要监测，预计该组织的许多成员将侧重于适当性，但行政管理部门必须特别注意取得预期结果的效率。 − − − − Simon followed Chester Barnard who pointed out that "the decisions that an individual makes as a member of an organization are quite distinct from his personal decisions". Personal choices may be determined whether an individual joins a particular organization, and continue to be made in his or her extra–organizational private life. As a member of an organization, however, that individual makes decisions not in relationship to personal needs and results, but in an impersonal sense as part of the organizational intent, purpose, and effect. Organizational inducements, rewards, and sanctions are all designed to form, strengthen, and maintain this identification. − − 西蒙追随切斯特 · 巴纳德，他指出“作为一个组织的成员，个人所做的决定与他的个人决定是截然不同的”。个人的选择可以决定一个人是否加入某个组织，并继续在其组织外的私人生活中做出选择。然而，作为一个组织的成员，个人所做的决定并不是与个人的需要和结果有关，而是作为组织意图、目的和效果的一部分，在非个人意义上做出的。组织的激励、奖励和制裁都是为了形成、加强和保持这种认同而设计的。 − − − − Simon This entailed evaluating alternative choices in terms of their consequences for the group rather than only for onself or ones family. − − 这意味着评估替代选择对团体的影响，而不仅仅是对个人或家庭。 − − − − Decisions can be complex admixtures of facts and values. Information about facts, especially empirically-proven facts or facts derived from specialized experience, are more easily transmitted in the exercise of authority than are the expressions of values. Simon is primarily interested in seeking identification of the individual employee with the organizational goals and values. Following Lasswell, he states that "a person identifies himself with a group when, in making a decision, he evaluates the several alternatives of choice in terms of their consequences for the specified group". A person may identify himself with any number of social, geographic, economic, racial, religious, familial, educational, gender, political, and sports groups. Indeed, the number and variety are unlimited. The fundamental problem for organizations is to recognize that personal and group identifications may either facilitate or obstruct correct decision making for the organization. A specific organization has to determine deliberately, and specify in appropriate detail and clear language, its own goals, objectives, means, ends, and values. − − 决策可以是事实和价值的复杂混合体。有关事实的信息，尤其是经过实践证明的事实或来自专门经验的事实，在行使权力时比表达价值时更容易传播。Simon 主要感兴趣的是寻求组织目标和价值观对员工个体的认同。继拉斯韦尔之后，他指出，”当一个人在作出决定时，根据对特定群体的影响来评估选择的几个备选方案时，他就认同了一个群体”。一个人可能认同任何数量的社会、地理、经济、种族、宗教、家庭、教育、性别、政治和体育团体。的确，数量和种类是无限的。组织的基本问题是认识到个人和群体认同可能有助于或阻碍组织的正确决策。一个特定的组织必须有意识地决定，并且以适当的细节和明确的语言规定它自己的目标、目的、手段、目的和价值观。 − − − − Simon has been critical of traditional economics' elementary understanding of decision-making, and argues it "is too quick to build an idealistic, unrealistic picture of the decision-making process and then prescribe on the basis of such unrealistic picture". − − 西蒙一直对传统经济学对决策的基本理解持批评态度，他认为，传统经济学“太快地对决策过程构建一幅理想主义的、不切实际的图景，然后再根据这种不切实际的图景开出处方”。 − − − Herbert Simon rediscovered path diagrams which were invented by Sewall Wright around 1920. Source: The Book of Why Judea Pearl, Dana Mackenzie p.79.+ + + − 赫伯特 · 西蒙重新发现了路径图，这是塞沃尔 · 赖特在1920年左右发明的。来源: The Book of Why Judea Pearl，Dana Mackenzie p. 79。+ − − − − {{quote|The human being striving for rationality and restricted within the limits of his knowledge has developed some working procedures that partially overcome these difficulties. These procedures consist in assuming that he can isolate from the rest of the world a closed system containing a limited number of variables and a limited range of consequences.<ref>{{Harvnb|Simon|1976|p=82}}</ref>}} − − − − Simon was a pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence, creating with Allen Newell the Logic Theory Machine (1956) and the General Problem Solver (GPS) (1957) programs. GPS may possibly be the first method developed for separating problem solving strategy from information about particular problems. Both programs were developed using the Information Processing Language (IPL) (1956) developed by Newell, Cliff Shaw, and Simon. Donald Knuth mentions the development of list processing in IPL, with the linked list originally called "NSS memory" for its inventors. In 1957, Simon predicted that computer chess would surpass human chess abilities within "ten years" when, in reality, that transition took about forty years. − − Simon 是人工智能领域的先驱，他与 Allen Newell 合作开发了逻辑理论机(1956)和一般问题解决器定位系统(GPS)(1957)程序。全球定位系统可能是第一种将问题解决策略与特定问题的信息分离开来的方法。这两个程序都是使用信息处理语言(IPL)(1956年)开发的纽厄尔，克里夫肖和西蒙。Donald Knuth 提到了 IPL 中列表处理的发展，链表最初被称为“ NSS 存储器” ，以纪念发明者。1957年，西蒙预测计算机国际象棋将在“十年”内超越人类的国际象棋能力，而实际上，这种转变需要大约四十年。 − − Simon therefore, describes work in terms of an economic framework, conditioned on human cognitive limitations: Economic man and Administrative man. − − − − In the early 1960s psychologist Ulric Neisser asserted that while machines are capable of replicating "cold cognition" behaviors such as reasoning, planning, perceiving, and deciding, they would never be able to replicate "hot cognition" behaviors such as pain, pleasure, desire, and other emotions. Simon responded to Neisser's views in 1963 by writing a paper on emotional cognition, which he updated in 1967 and published in Psychological Review. Simon's work on emotional cognition was largely ignored by the artificial intelligence research community for several years, but subsequent work on emotions by Sloman and Picard helped refocus attention on Simon's paper and eventually, made it highly influential on the topic. − − 20世纪60年代早期，心理学家乌尔里克 · 内瑟断言，虽然机器能够复制“冷认知”行为，如推理、计划、感知和决策，但它们永远不可能复制“热认知”行为，如疼痛、快乐、欲望和其他情绪。西蒙在1963年通过写一篇关于情感认知的论文回应了内瑟的观点，他在1967年对论文进行了更新，并发表在《心理学评论》上。西蒙在情绪认知方面的研究在很大程度上被人工智能研究界忽视了好几年，但是斯洛曼和皮卡德后来在情绪方面的研究帮助人们重新关注西蒙的论文，并最终使其在这个话题上产生了很大的影响。 − − − − Simon also collaborated with James G. March on several works in organization theory. The study of human problem solving required new kinds of human measurements and, with Anders Ericsson, Simon developed the experimental technique of verbal protocol analysis. Simon was interested in the role of knowledge in expertise. He said that to become an expert on a topic required about ten years of experience and he and colleagues estimated that expertise was the result of learning roughly 50,000 chunks of information. A chess expert was said to have learned about 50,000 chunks or chess position patterns. − − 西蒙还与詹姆斯 · 马奇在组织理论方面进行了一些合作。人类解决问题的研究需要新的人类测量方法，西蒙和安德斯 · 埃里克森一起开发了口头协议分析的实验技术。西蒙对知识在专业知识中的作用很感兴趣。他说，成为一个专题的专家需要大约十年的经验，他和同事估计，专业知识是学习大约50,000块信息的结果。据说，一位国际象棋专家已经掌握了大约50,000个棋子或棋位模式。 − + − − He was awarded the ACM Turing Award, along with Allen Newell, in 1975. "In joint scientific efforts extending over twenty years, initially in collaboration with J. C. (Cliff) Shaw at the RAND Corporation, and with numerous faculty and student colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University, they have made basic contributions to artificial intelligence, the psychology of human cognition, and list processing." Later versions of the model were applied to concept formation and the acquisition of expertise. With Fernand Gobet, he has expanded the EPAM theory into the CHREST computational model. The theory explains how simple chunks of information form the building blocks of schemata, which are more complex structures. CHREST has been used predominantly, to simulate aspects of chess expertise. − − 1975年，他和 Allen Newell 一起被授予图灵奖。在超过20年的联合科学努力中，最初是与兰德公司的 j. c. (Cliff) Shaw，以及卡内基梅隆大学的许多教员和学生同事合作，他们为人工智能、人类认知心理学和列表处理做出了基本贡献该模型的后来版本被应用于概念形成和专业知识的获取。在弗尔南多 · 戈贝特的帮助下，他将 pam 理论扩展到了 CHREST 计算模型。这个理论解释了简单的信息块是如何形成图式的构建块的，而图式是更复杂的结构。CHREST 主要用于，模拟国际象棋专业知识的各个方面。 − − − − − − Simon has been credited for revolutionary changes in microeconomics. He is responsible for the concept of organizational decision-making as it is known today. He also was the first to discuss this concept in terms of uncertainty; i.e., it is impossible to have perfect and complete information at any given time to make a decision. While this notion was not entirely new, Simon is best known for its origination. It was in this area that he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1978. − − 西蒙因微观经济学的革命性变革而受到赞誉。他负责组织决策的概念，就是今天我们所知道的。他也是第一个在不确定性方面讨论这个概念的人; 也就是说，在任何给定的时间都不可能有完美和完整的信息来作出决定。虽然这个概念并不是全新的，但西蒙最出名的是它的起源。正是在这个领域，他于1978年获得了诺贝尔奖。 − − − At the Cowles Commission, Simon's main goal was to link economic theory to mathematics and statistics. His main contributions were to the fields of general equilibrium and econometrics. He was greatly influenced by the marginalist debate that began in the 1930s. The popular work of the time argued that it was not apparent empirically that entrepreneurs needed to follow the marginalist principles of profit-maximization/cost-minimization in running organizations. The argument went on to note that profit maximization was not accomplished, in part, because of the lack of complete information. In decision-making, Simon believed that agents face uncertainty about the future and costs in acquiring information in the present. These factors limit the extent to which agents may make a fully rational decision, thus they possess only "bounded rationality" and must make decisions by "satisficing", or choosing that which might not be optimal, but which will make them happy enough. Bounded rationality is a central theme in behavioral economics. It is concerned with the ways in which the actual decision making process influences decision. Theories of bounded rationality relax one or more assumptions of standard expected utility theory.+ − − 在考尔斯委员会，西蒙的主要目标是将经济理论与数学和统计学联系起来。他的主要贡献是在一般均衡和计量经济学领域。他深受1930年代开始的边缘主义论战的影响。当时流行的著作认为，从经验上看，企业家在经营组织时需要遵循利润最大化/成本最小化的边缘原则并不明显。争论继续指出，《利润最大化没有完成，部分原因是缺乏完整的信息。在决策过程中，Simon 认为代理人面临着未来的不确定性，以及当前获取信息的成本。这些因素限制了代理人做出完全理性决策的程度，因此他们只拥有“有限理性” ，必须通过“满足”或选择那些可能不是最优的，但却能让他们足够快乐的东西来做决策。有限理性是行为经济学的中心主题。它涉及到实际的决策过程影响决策的方式。有限理性理论放松了标准期望效用理论的一个或多个假设。 − − − − − − Further, Simon emphasized that psychologists invoke a "procedural" definition of rationality, whereas economists employ a "substantive" definition. Gustavos Barros argued that the procedural rationality concept does not have a significant presence in the economics field and has never had nearly as much weight as the concept of bounded rationality. However, in an earlier article, Bhargava (1997) noted the importance of Simon's arguments and emphasized that there are several applications of the "procedural" definition of rationality in econometric analyses of data on health. In particular, economists should employ "auxiliary assumptions" that reflect the knowledge in the relevant biomedical fields, and guide the specification of econometric models for health outcomes. − − 此外，西蒙强调，心理学家引用“程序性”的理性定义，而经济学家采用“实质性”的定义。认为程序理性的概念在经济学领域并没有重要的地位，也从来没有像有限理性理性的概念那么有分量。然而，在早些时候的一篇文章中，Bhargava (1997年)指出了 Simon 论点的重要性，并强调在卫生数据的计量经济学分析中，合理性的”程序性”定义有若干应用。特别是，经济学家应该采用反映相关生物医学领域知识的”辅助假设” ，并指导健康结果的计量经济学模型的具体说明。 − − − Simon was also known for his research on industrial organization. He determined that the internal organization of firms and the external business decisions thereof, did not conform to the neoclassical theories of "rational" decision-making. Simon wrote many articles on the topic over the course of his life, mainly focusing on the issue of decision-making within the behavior of what he termed "bounded rationality". "Rational behavior, in economics, means that individuals maximize their utility function under the constraints they face (e.g., their budget constraint, limited choices, ...) in pursuit of their self-interest. This is reflected in the theory of subjective expected utility. The term, bounded rationality, is used to designate rational choice that takes into account the cognitive limitations of both knowledge and cognitive capacity. Bounded rationality is a central theme in behavioral economics. It is concerned with the ways in which the actual decision-making process influences decisions. Theories of bounded rationality relax one or more assumptions of standard expected utility theory".+ − − 西蒙也因其对产业组织的研究而闻名。他断定，企业的内部组织及其外部商业决策，不符合新古典主义的“理性”决策理论。在他的一生中写了很多关于这个主题的文章，主要集中在他称之为“有限理性”的行为中的决策问题。“理性行为，在经济学中，意味着个人在他们面临的约束(例如，他们的预算线，有限的选择，... ...)下最大化他们的效用函数，以追求他们的自身利益。这反映在主观期望效用理论中。这个术语，有限理性，是用来指代理性选择，考虑到知识和认知能力的认知局限性。有限理性是行为经济学的中心主题。它关注的是实际决策过程影响决策的方式。有限理性理论放松了标准期望效用理论的一个或多个假设”。 − − − − − − Simon determined that the best way to study these areas was through computer simulations. As such, he developed an interest in computer science. Simon's main interests in computer science were in artificial intelligence, human–computer interaction, principles of the organization of humans and machines as information processing systems, the use of computers to study (by modeling) philosophical problems of the nature of intelligence and of epistemology, and the social implications of computer technology. − − 西蒙认为研究这些区域的最好方法是通过计算机模拟。因此，他对计算机科学产生了兴趣。西蒙对计算机科学的主要兴趣在于人工智能、人机交互、人和机器作为信息处理系统的组织原则、利用计算机研究(通过建模)智能和认识论本质的哲学问题，以及计算机技术的社会意义。 − − − − Herbert Simon rediscovered path diagrams which were invented by Sewall Wright around 1920. Source: The Book of Why Judea Pearl, Dana Mackenzie p.79. − − In his youth, Simon took an interest in land economics and Georgism, an idea known at the time as "single tax". − − 西蒙年轻时对土地经济学和乔治主义很感兴趣，当时这个想法被称为“单一税”。 − −
→决策
===决策===
===决策===
''Administrative Behavior'',<ref name="BarnardSimon1947">C. Barnard and H. A. Simon. (1947). ''Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organization''. Macmillan, New York.</ref> first published in 1947 and updated across the years, was based on Simon's doctoral dissertation.<ref name="Simon1976">{{Harvnb|Simon|1976}}</ref> It served as the foundation for his life's work. The centerpiece of this book is the behavioral and cognitive processes of humans making rational decisions. By his definition, an operational administrative decision should be correct, efficient, and practical to implement with a set of coordinated means.<ref name="Simon1976"/>
''Administrative Behavior'',<ref name="BarnardSimon1947">C. Barnard and H. A. Simon. (1947). ''Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organization''. Macmillan, New York.</ref> first published in 1947, and updated across the years was based on Simon's doctoral dissertation.<ref name="Simon1976">{{Harvnb|Simon|1976}}</ref> It served as the foundation for his life's work. The centerpiece of this book is the behavioral and cognitive processes of humans making rational choices, that is, decisions. By his definition, an operational administrative decision should be correct and efficient, and it must be practical to implement with a set of coordinated means.<ref name="Simon1976"/>
Simon recognized that a theory of administration is largely a theory of human decision making, and as such must be based on both economics and on psychology. He states:
Simon recognized that a theory of administration is largely a theory of human decision making, and as such must be based on both economics and on psychology. He states:
{{Quotation|[If] there were no limits to human rationality administrative theory would be barren. It would consist of the single precept: Always select that alternative, among those available, which will lead to the most complete achievement of your goals.<ref name="Simon1976"/> (p xxviii)}}
{{Quotation|[If] there were no limits to human rationality administrative theory would be barren. It would consist of the single precept: Always select that alternative, among those available, which will lead to the most complete achievement of your goals.<ref name="Simon1976"/> (p xxviii)}}
Contrary to the "[[homo economicus]]" stereotype, Simon argued that alternatives and consequences may be partly known, and means and ends imperfectly differentiated, incompletely related, or poorly detailed.<ref name="Simon1976"/>
Contrary to the "[[homo economicus]]" stereotype, Simon argued that alternatives and consequences may be partly known, and means and ends imperfectly differentiated, incompletely related, or poorly detailed.<ref name="Simon1976"/>
Simon defined the task of rational decision making is to select the alternative that results in the more preferred set of all the possible consequences. Correctness of administrative decisions was thus measured by:
Simon defined the task of rational decision making is to select the alternative that results in the more preferred set of all the possible consequences. Correctness of administrative decisions was thus measured by:
* Adequacy of achieving the desired objective
* Adequacy of achieving the desired objective
* Efficiency with which the result was obtained
* Efficiency with which the result was obtained
The task of choice was divided into three required steps:<ref>{{Harvnb|Simon|1976|p=67}}</ref>
The task of choice was divided into three required steps:<ref>{{Harvnb|Simon|1976|p=67}}</ref>
* Identifying and listing all the alternatives
* Identifying and listing all the alternatives
* Determining all consequences resulting from each of the alternatives;
* Determining all consequences resulting from each of the alternatives;
* Comparing the accuracy and efficiency of each of these sets of consequences
* Comparing the accuracy and efficiency of each of these sets of consequences
Any given individual or organization attempting to implement this model in a real situation would be unable to comply with the three requirements. Simon argued that knowledge of all alternatives, or all consequences that follow from each alternative is impossible in many realistic cases.<ref name="BarnardSimon1947"/>
Any given individual or organization attempting to implement this model in a real situation would be unable to comply with the three requirements. Simon argued that knowledge of all alternatives, or all consequences that follow from each alternative is impossible in many realistic cases.<ref name="BarnardSimon1947"/>
Simon attempted to determine the techniques and/or behavioral processes that a person or organization could bring to bear to achieve approximately the best result given limits on rational decision making.<ref name=Simon1976/> Simon writes:
Simon attempted to determine the techniques and/or behavioral processes that a person or organization could bring to bear to achieve approximately the best result given limits on rational decision making.<ref name=Simon1976/> Simon writes:
<blockquote>
The human being striving for rationality and restricted within the limits of his knowledge has developed some working procedures that partially overcome these difficulties. These procedures consist in assuming that he can isolate from the rest of the world a closed system containing a limited number of variables and a limited range of consequences.<ref>{{Harvnb|Simon|1976|p=82}}</ref>
</blockquote>
Therefore, Simon describes work in terms of an economic framework, conditioned on human cognitive limitations: ''Economic man'' and ''Administrative man''.
''Administrative Behavior'' addresses a wide range of human behaviors, cognitive abilities, management techniques, personnel policies, training goals and procedures, specialized roles, criteria for evaluation of accuracy and efficiency, and all of the ramifications of communication processes. Simon is particularly interested in how these factors influence the making of decisions, both directly and indirectly.{{citation needed|date=January 2014}}
''Administrative Behavior'' addresses a wide range of human behaviors, cognitive abilities, management techniques, personnel policies, training goals and procedures, specialized roles, criteria for evaluation of accuracy and efficiency, and all of the ramifications of communication processes. Simon is particularly interested in how these factors influence the making of decisions, both directly and indirectly.{{citation needed|date=January 2014}}
Simon argued that the two outcomes of a choice require monitoring and that many members of the organization would be expected to focus on adequacy, but that administrative management must pay particular attention to the efficiency with which the desired result was obtained.{{citation needed|date=January 2014}}
Simon argued that the two outcomes of a choice require monitoring and that many members of the organization would be expected to focus on adequacy, but that administrative management must pay particular attention to the efficiency with which the desired result was obtained.{{citation needed|date=January 2014}}
Simon followed [[Chester Barnard]], who stated "the decisions that an individual makes as a member of an organization are quite distinct from his personal decisions".<ref>{{Harvnb|Barnard|1938|p=77}} cited by {{Harvnb|Simon|1976|pp= 202–203}}</ref> Personal choices may be determined whether an individual joins a particular organization and continue to be made in his or her extra–organizational private life. As a member of an organization, however, that individual makes decisions not in relationship to personal needs and results, but in an impersonal sense as part of the organizational intent, purpose, and effect. Organizational inducements, rewards, and sanctions are all designed to form, strengthen, and maintain this identification.{{citation needed|date=January 2014}}
Simon followed [[Chester Barnard]] who pointed out that "the decisions that an individual makes as a member of an organization are quite distinct from his personal decisions".<ref>{{Harvnb|Barnard|1938|p=77}} cited by {{Harvnb|Simon|1976|pp= 202–203}}</ref> Personal choices may be determined whether an individual joins a particular organization, and continue to be made in his or her extra–organizational private life. As a member of an organization, however, that individual makes decisions not in relationship to personal needs and results, but in an impersonal sense as part of the organizational intent, purpose, and effect. Organizational inducements, rewards, and sanctions are all designed to form, strengthen, and maintain this identification.{{citation needed|date=January 2014}}
Simon<ref name="Simon1976"/> saw two universal elements of human social behavior as key to creating the possibility of organizational behavior in human individuals: Authority (addressed in Chapter VII—The Role of Authority) and in Loyalties and Identification (Addressed in Chapter X: Loyalties, and Organizational Identification).
Simon<ref name="Simon1976"/> saw two universal elements of human social behavior as key to creating the possibility of organizational behavior in human individuals: Authority (addressed in Chapter VII—The Role of Authority) and in Loyalties and Identification (Addressed in Chapter X: Loyalties, and Organizational Identification).
Authority is a well-studied, primary mark of organizational behavior, straightforwardly defined in the organizational context as the ability and right of an individual of higher rank to guide the decisions of an individual of lower rank. The actions, attitudes, and relationships of the dominant and subordinate individuals constitute components of role behavior that may vary widely in form, style, and content, but do not vary in the expectation of obedience by the one of superior status, and willingness to obey from the subordinate.{{citation needed|date=January 2014}}
Authority is a well-studied, primary mark of organizational behavior, straightforwardly defined in the organizational context as the ability and right of an individual of higher rank to guide the decisions of an individual of lower rank. The actions, attitudes, and relationships of the dominant and subordinate individuals constitute components of role behavior that may vary widely in form, style, and content, but do not vary in the expectation of obedience by the one of superior status, and willingness to obey from the subordinate.{{citation needed|date=January 2014}}
Loyalty was defined by Simon as the "process whereby the individual substitutes organizational objectives (service objectives or conservation objectives) for his own aims as the value-indices which determine his organizational decisions".<ref>{{Harvnb|Simon|1976|pp= 218}}</ref> This entailed evaluating alternative choices in terms of their consequences for the group rather than only for oneself or one's family.<ref>{{Harvnb|Simon|1976|pp= 206}}</ref>
Loyalty was defined by Simon as the "process whereby the individual substitutes organizational objectives (service objectives or conservation objectives) for his own aims as the value-indices which determine his organizational decisions".<ref>{{Harvnb|Simon|1976|pp= 218}}</ref> This entailed evaluating alternative choices in terms of their consequences for the group rather than only for onself or ones family.<ref>{{Harvnb|Simon|1976|pp= 206}}</ref>
Decisions can be complex admixtures of facts and values. Information about facts, especially empirically-proven facts or facts derived from specialized experience, are more easily transmitted in the exercise of authority than are the expressions of values. Simon is primarily interested in seeking identification of the individual employee with the organizational goals and values. Following [[Lasswell]],<ref>{{Harvnb|Lasswell|1935|pp=29–51}} cited by {{Harvnb|Simon|1976|pp=205}}</ref> he states that "a person identifies himself with a group when, in making a decision, he evaluates the several alternatives of choice in terms of their consequences for the specified group".<ref>{{Harvnb|Simon|1976|p=205}}</ref> A person may identify himself with any number of social, geographic, economic, racial, religious, familial, educational, gender, political, and sports groups. Indeed, the number and variety are unlimited. The fundamental problem for organizations is to recognize that personal and group identifications may either facilitate or obstruct correct decision making for the organization. A specific organization has to determine deliberately, and specify in appropriate detail and clear language, its own goals, objectives, means, ends, and values.{{citation needed|date=January 2014}}
Decisions can be complex admixtures of facts and values. Information about facts, especially empirically-proven facts or facts derived from specialized experience, are more easily transmitted in the exercise of authority than are the expressions of values. Simon is primarily interested in seeking identification of the individual employee with the organizational goals and values. Following [[Lasswell]],<ref>{{Harvnb|Lasswell|1935|pp=29–51}} cited by {{Harvnb|Simon|1976|pp=205}}</ref> he states that "a person identifies himself with a group when, in making a decision, he evaluates the several alternatives of choice in terms of their consequences for the specified group".<ref>{{Harvnb|Simon|1976|p=205}}</ref> A person may identify himself with any number of social, geographic, economic, racial, religious, familial, educational, gender, political, and sports groups. Indeed, the number and variety are unlimited. The fundamental problem for organizations is to recognize that personal and group identifications may either facilitate or obstruct correct decision making for the organization. A specific organization has to determine deliberately, and specify in appropriate detail and clear language, its own goals, objectives, means, ends, and values.{{citation needed|date=January 2014}}
Simon has been critical of traditional economics' elementary understanding of decision-making, and argues it "is too quick to build an idealistic, unrealistic picture of the decision-making process and then prescribe on the basis of such unrealistic picture".<ref>Simon, Herbert. https://www.ubs.com/microsites/nobel-perspectives/en/herbert-simon.html</ref>
Simon has been critical of traditional economics' elementary understanding of decision-making, and argues it "is too quick to build an idealistic, unrealistic picture of the decision-making process and then prescribe on the basis of such unrealistic picture".<ref>Simon, Herbert. https://www.ubs.com/microsites/nobel-perspectives/en/herbert-simon.html{{Dead link|date=July 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>
===人工智能===
===人工智能===