Barriers associated with rational decision making and continuous improvement planning: A descriptive study

This descriptive study examined how fourth and sixth grade teachers, leaders and Continuous Improvement Planning (CIP) team members perceived the barriers to rational decision making in continuous improvement planning. Five identified barriers to rational decision making were identified by Herbert Simon (1955). These barriers are: imperfect and incomplete information, complexity of the problem, human information processing capacity, support for organizational goals, and time available for decision making. This study examined the degree to which the barriers to rational decision making were perceived in districts with different academic standings, by individuals involved and not involved in the CIP process and by those did and did not identified themselves as directly responsible for implementation of the continuous improvement plan.; The high alpha coefficients for the original cluster of questions in the pilot phase of the questionnaire development and the refined dependent variables identified on the rotation component matrix supported a confidence in the construct validity of the survey instrument to measure the barriers associated with rational decision making.; The barriers to rational decision making were not viewed as major barriers in continuous improvement planning when examined through the survey developed for this study. The barriers were viewed with moderate to high degrees of rationality, confidence, and the CIP process was considered to be significant and important. However, a total of 42% of the respondents answered 'no' when asked if they were directly responsible for the implementation of the CIP plan. That included 51% of all fourth grade teachers, 45% of all sixth grade teachers and 42% of all leaders and 40% of all the people who participated in the CIP process.; The lack of ownership, when positioned against the strong support for the process and goals by the same people, created a dichotomy that seemed to identify the exact place where planning ends and the process of implementation fails to begin.