Tuncay Unal, PhD
tuncay.unal@gc4ss.org

More than fifty years ago, Herbert Simon (1947) introduced the rational model of administration, along with concepts that remain influential today, including bounded rationality, administrative man, and satisficing. Simon argues that rationality underpins administrative organisation, contending that organisations exist to enhance individual rationality and to structure human behaviour in ways that approximate rational decision-making (Denhardt, 1984). He maintains that complete or absolute rationality is unattainable and can only be approached.

According to Simon, individual rationality is inherently limited because the range of alternatives and the volume of information required for fully rational evaluation exceed human cognitive capacity. As a result, individuals face constraints in responding effectively to complex problems. Given these limitations, people operate within the bounds of rationality during the decision-making process and therefore satisfice, making choices that are acceptable and sufficient rather than optimal (Fry, 1989).

Because of these limitations, individuals are compelled to work collectively within groups and organisations in order to engage effectively with their environment. Simon argues that it is only through organisational participation that individuals can approximate rationality. He defines an organisation as a complex network of communication and relationships among individuals and emphasises that organisations play a critical role by structuring communication, thereby shaping the informational context within which decisions are made.

According to Farmer (1995), a leading postmodern scholar, Simon seeks to construct an administrative science by pursuing universal principles in public administration through a clear separation of facts and values and by framing factual claims as empirically testable. While Farmer agrees with Simon’s view that questions of what works and what does not in government can be examined scientifically, he argues that the epistemological status of such scientific claims remains ambiguous. Farmer further contends that, in addition to scientific analysis, public administration must incorporate ethical considerations and interpretive understanding.

Simon argues that decision-making in public organisations often follows a stimulus–response pattern rather than a comprehensive evaluation of all available alternatives. This is particularly evident in public administration and emergency management, where time pressure, uncertainty, and information overload constrain the capacity of individual decision-makers. Because public officials and emergency managers face significant constraints in processing information, the design of administrative decision-making systems becomes critically important. Simon emphasises that such systems should be structured to deliver only the essential information needed for action, rather than overwhelming decision makers with excessive data.

Within public administration, Simon views executive leadership as central to shaping organizational behavior. Through the division of labor, standardized procedures, hierarchical authority, communication systems, training, and organizational socialization, public managers influence employee actions to ensure alignment with broader governmental and emergency response objectives. In emergency management in particular, these administrative tools enable coordinated action and timely responses under conditions of uncertainty.

Under the framework of bounded rationality, the “administrative man” operating in public agencies does not seek to maximize outcomes in the abstract, as assumed by the “economic man,” but instead aims to make decisions that are workable and sufficient given situational constraints. Simon’s concept of satisficing is especially relevant for public administration and emergency management, where effective governance often depends on timely, practical decisions rather than optimal ones. This contribution remains central to understanding decision-making in complex public organizations and crisis environments.

Role of Administrative Man in Disaster Response

In disaster response, communication is a strategic necessity that enables shared situational awareness, interagency coordination, and timely decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. When emergency management systems function as cooperative decision-making networks, effective communication ensures that critical information becomes common knowledge, allowing responders to act collectively, allocate resources efficiently, and reduce response failures during crises.

Conclusion

Herbert Simon’s work represents a foundational starting point for administrative science by providing a coherent framework for understanding organizations, decision-making, and the limits of human rationality. His concepts of bounded rationality, satisficing, and administrative man remain especially relevant for public administration and emergency management, where decision makers routinely operate under conditions of uncertainty, time pressure, and information constraints. In disaster preparedness and response, Simon’s emphasis on organizational structure, communication, and decision systems helps explain how public agencies coordinate action and make workable decisions when optimal outcomes are unattainable.

However, as Farmer (1995) persuasively argues, Simon’s scientific approach to administration leaves important dimensions underdeveloped. While empirical analysis and rational design are essential, public administration, particularly in emergency management, also requires ethical judgment, contextual understanding, and interpretive awareness. Disaster response involves moral choices, equity considerations, and trust-building with communities, elements that cannot be fully captured through technical rationality alone (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015; Comfort, 2007).

Therefore, Simon’s theory should be viewed not as a complete model of public administration, but as a critical foundation upon which broader perspectives must be built. Integrating bounded rationality with ethical governance, democratic values, and collaborative learning strengthens administrative capacity in disaster preparedness and emergency management. Such integration allows public institutions not only to make timely and effective decisions, but also to respond in ways that are legitimate, equitable, and responsive to the complex human realities of crisis situations.

References :

Comfort, L. K. (2007). Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public Administration Review, 67(S1), 189–197.

Denhardt, R. (1984). Theories of public organizations. California: Brooks/Cole Publishers.

Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2015). The New Public Service. New York: Routledge.

Farmer, D. J. (1995). The language of public administration: Bureaucracy, modernity, and postmodernity. Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.

Fry, B. (1989). “Herbert Simon” Mastering public administration: From Max Weber to Dwight Waldo. New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers.

Simon, H. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision making processes in administrative organization (4^th ed.). New York: The Free Press