UPI Study › Courses › Foundations of Leadership › Free lessons › Lesson 7.5 Free with a free account
The Incremental Model
Foundations of Leadership · Chapter 7: Decision-Making ModuleSection 7.5 · lesson 42 of 9010 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Foundations of Leadership.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Foundations of Leadership
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: The Administrative Model →← The Vroom-Yetton ModelNext lesson: The Administrative Model →
In this lesson
Muddling through, defended - and the settings where it leads straight off a cliff.
- Trace incrementalism to Lindblom's argument
- Distinguish the branch method from the root method
- Name the conditions where increments work
- Separate logical incrementalism from drift
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,400 words). Read along, or search it.
Decision-Making Module
The Incremental Model
Look at how a large organisation actually changed over the last decade. You will rarely find a single sweeping rational choice at the origin of it. You will find a long series of small adjustments. Textbooks have often treated that as a failure to live up to the rational ideal. Charles Lindblom argued the opposite. He argued it was a more realistic, and often more responsible, way to decide. He called it incrementalism, or successive limited comparisons. The model began in public policy. It has since been extended to corporate strategy. Where it explains a great deal of what otherwise looks like organisational drift.
The Challenge
Muddling Through, Deliberately
Lindblom published The Science of Muddling Through in nineteen fifty-nine. It challenged a comforting assumption that dominated post-war decision theory. The assumption that rational choice was the standard for judging actual decisions. Lindblom argued that real administrators do not, and cannot, meet that standard. They do not consider all alternatives. They do not evaluate all consequences. And they do not rank those consequences by a coherent set of values. Instead, they begin with the existing policy. And they consider only marginal changes to it. Each small change is evaluated against a limited number of immediate consequences. The provocation in the paper is not the description. Most people recognised the description. It is that Lindblom refused to call it a failure.
Three Constraints
Why the Rational Model Is Not Available
His case rests on three constraints that make the rational model unavailable. The first is cognitive. No one can consider every alternative, or trace every consequence. The second is political. Any consequential decision affects multiple constituencies with different values. And reconciling those values from scratch, every time, is paralysing. The third is informational. The data needed to evaluate alternatives is often unavailable, expensive, or contested. Given all three, what administrators actually do is narrower and more practical. They consider a small number of alternatives that differ marginally from existing policy. They evaluate each against a short list of immediate consequences. And they choose the one that is satisfactory to enough constituencies to be implementable. Note that last criterion. Implementable, not optimal.
Two Methods
Root and Branch
Lindblom drew a sharp contrast between two approaches, and named them. The root method is the rational-comprehensive ideal. It starts from first principles, identifies all alternatives, evaluates each against unified values. And then selects the best one. The branch method is incrementalism. It starts from the current state, identifies a few small departures from it. It evaluates each against immediate consequences, and selects one. Both are coherent approaches to decision-making. Lindblom's claim was empirical and philosophical at the same time. Empirically, the root method is rarely possible in complex social settings. And philosophically, the branch method is not a poor substitute for it. It has its own virtues. Political feasibility, reversibility, and learning from results.
Side by Side
The Same Decision, Two Grammars
The two methods differ on every dimension, not just on their starting points. The root method begins from first principles and values. The branch method begins from current practice. The root method enumerates alternatives comprehensively. The branch method takes a few marginal departures. The root method weighs all material consequences. The branch method weighs the immediate and salient ones. On values, the difference is subtle and important. The root method articulates and weights values upfront. In the branch method, values are embedded in the choice itself, never separately stated. Feedback is optional in the root method, arriving after implementation if at all. In the branch method, feedback is built into the succession of steps. Which is why each suits a different class of problem. Root for well-defined, novel problems. Branch for complex, contested, repeated ones.
The Mechanism
Four Features, and the Defence They Support
Four features characterise incremental decision-making in practice. First, decisions are made relative to a baseline. Typically last year's budget, last quarter's policy, or simply the current practice. Second, only a small number of alternatives are considered. Each one representing a marginal departure from that baseline. Third, only a limited set of consequences is examined. Usually the ones most immediate to the decision-makers' own constituencies. And fourth, the process is iterative. Each decision is treated as a step that can be reversed, or extended, depending on what happens. That iterative quality is central to incrementalism's defence. Because each step is small and reversible, a wrong step can be corrected cheaply. Because the cost of being wrong is bounded, decisions come faster, with less paralysing analysis. And because each step generates feedback, the organisation learns by doing. So this is not a recipe for stagnation. It is controlled experimentation.
The Staircase
Each Step Sets Up the Next Decision
Picture the shape of it as a staircase rather than a leap. You begin at a baseline. The existing policy or practice. The first step is a pilot, in one region. Bounded cost, and reversible. The second extends it to three regions, and watches what changed. The third adjusts, recalibrating on the data the pilot produced. And the fourth rolls out nationally. The arrows that matter run backwards, from each step to the next decision point. That is where the learning actually enters the process. And notice what happens at the end of the sequence. The national roll-out becomes the new baseline. Which is where the next round of increments will start from.
Where It Fails
Three Settings That Punish Small Steps
Incrementalism suits a specific profile of problem. Complex problems, contested values, and a bounded cost of getting any one decision wrong. Government budgeting fits that profile almost perfectly, which is why the model originated there. Corporate strategy in mature industries shows the same pattern. So do regulatory policy and educational curriculum design. But there are three settings where the method is genuinely weak. The first is crisis, where the speed of change makes successive small steps too slow. The second is discontinuity. A new technology, a regulatory break, a market collapse. There, the existing baseline has become irrelevant. So incrementing from it does not just move slowly. It moves in the wrong direction. The third is ethical questions of principle. Small steps can normalise an outcome a comprehensive evaluation would have rejected outright. Lindblom himself acknowledged that incrementalism carries a status-quo bias. That bias is exactly what makes it safe in stable settings, and dangerous in transformative ones.
Case
A Decade to Reach Eighty-Five Per Cent
India's national tobacco-control policy is a textbook example of the branch method. The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act of two thousand and three imposed graphic health warnings. They were small at first. Then expanded incrementally over a decade, to cover eighty-five per cent of the pack. Tax rates on tobacco were raised in small annual increments. Rather than imposed in one disruptive jump. And public-space smoking bans extended in successive waves. From offices, to restaurants, to outdoor areas. Each step generated feedback that informed the next. Compliance rates. Legal challenges. Industry counter-moves. Public-health advocates have criticised the approach as far too slow. Its proponents make an argument about political survival, not about optimality. A comprehensive root-method regulation in two thousand and three would have provoked serious resistance. Strong enough, they argue, to roll the entire programme back.
In Strategy
Logical Incrementalism Is Not Drift
James Brian Quinn extended Lindblom's idea from public policy into corporate strategy. In his nineteen eighty book, Strategies for Change. He coined the term logical incrementalism. Quinn observed something about firms that had formal strategic plans on paper. They still executed strategy through a series of small, deliberate moves. Pilot programmes. Selective acquisitions. Gradual market entries. Those moves let top management test assumptions and build coalitions. And adjust direction before committing to a full transformation. The word doing the work in that phrase is logical. It means the deliberate use of small steps to manage uncertainty and political resistance. It does not mean aimless drift. That distinction matters, because incrementalism is often caricatured as the absence of strategy. When it is in fact a particular discipline of strategy.
Consolidate
Thousands of Small Changes a Year
The clearest industrial illustration is Toyota's lean production system. At its core, it is an institutionalised incremental decision-making process. The principle of kaizen, continuous improvement, commits the firm to thousands of small changes each year. Every one of them tested against immediate quality and efficiency data. Every one of them reversible if it fails to improve outcomes. And no single change large enough to disrupt production. The cumulative effect over decades was a transformation of automotive manufacturing. Which is the point that critics of incrementalism usually miss. Small steps do not preclude ambitious change. They can deliver it more reliably than any single comprehensive overhaul. The condition is that the feedback loop is real, and that somebody is actually reading it.
About Foundations of Leadership at UPI Study
Foundations of Leadership (Business 205) is a self-paced online course of 90 video lessons in 12 chapters, from the roots of leadership theory and the trait, situational and transformational approaches to power, decision-making, communication, teams, conflict, diversity and global leadership. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Management and leadership courses · Foundations of Leadership vs Leadership and OB
Why take it here
Why students take Foundations of Leadership with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Foundations of Leadership carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About The Incremental Model
What is the incremental model of decision making?
What is the difference between Lindblom's root method and branch method?
When is incremental decision making a poor choice?
What is logical incrementalism in strategy?
About the Foundations of Leadership course
How many college credits is Foundations of Leadership?
How much does Foundations of Leadership cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Foundations of Leadership take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Foundations of Leadership.
90 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →