Article Critique
The key notion of the article is the perception model that is based on the rational behavior of the customers. Even though the theory of rational behavior is reliable, a certain number of assumptions do not work well with the organizational theory. The supporters of the rational choice theory believe that it is contingent on two main aspects – transitivity and consistency. In other words, the theory of rational choice can be characterized as a tendency to assume the possibility of the appearance of certain preferences (which can be equal or unequal) among the customers. The academics claim that the probabilities inherent in the rational choice theory are dependent on various prospects. The key prospect is the connection between the customers’ behavior and decision-making principles. The author of the article states that altruistic behavior is not characteristic of the rational choice theory because it would require the theorists to expand on the topic of human motivation. The current article critique reveals the key ideas of the rational choice theory and points out the major differences between the latter and the organizational theory.
Main Ideas of the Article
According to Zey (1998), the rational choice theory was a successor of the organizational theory and was developed as a subdiscipline. Both these theories are based on the essential ideas of human nature and social organization. The author of the article provides extensive evidence concerning the outlooks of the rivals (Hobbes and Rousseau) when it comes to humanity and their views on behavioral patterns. Zey (1998) describes Hobbes’ position as a proactive necessity for a strict social order whereas Rousseau’s ideas support the idea that humanity is only contingent on the basic resources and essential human needs.
The author of the article claims that there are numerous fundamental differences between organizational theory and the theory of rational choice. The key difference, according to Zey (1998), lies in human nature and individual behavioral peculiarities. Furthermore, the adepts of the rational choice theory believe that humanity is just an instrument within the framework of the designated theory. Zey (1998) concludes that the central focus of the rational choice theory is the customers’ self-interest and sees social action as an important aspect of the institutional structure, cultural values, and goals.
Even though rational theory studies are considered to be problematic, they are defined as an effective tool used to predict social actions and generalize the assumptions that make the basis of the rational choice theory. The author of the article thoroughly describes the methodology used to test the eminence of the rational choice theory. Zey (1998) also concentrates her efforts on finding the key differences between the organizational and rational choice theories. As described by the author of the article, the ultimate variance lies in marketplace control and corporate roles within the organization. In addition, the act of decentralization should be considered an event with a negative connotation because it generates serious inequalities. The author of the article also considers individual behavior to be an outcome dependent on macro conditions as they represent the preferences of rational clients.
Conclusion
This article presents an extensive amount of evidence concerning the fundamental characteristics of the rational choice theory and its divergence from the organizational theory. The author of the article took into consideration the two opposing points of view to evaluate the performance of the theory within an organizational environment. The key finding of the study is that the rational choice theory is not broad enough to describe social relationships. Therefore, it cannot be effectively applied to the principles of human activity to develop a sufficient predictive model.
References
Zey, M. (1998). Basic characteristics of rational choice model versus organizational theories. In Rational choice theory and organizational theory: A critique (pp. 33-53). New York, NY: Sage Publications.