Decision-making is ordinarily
formalized as a means-ends relationship: means are conceived to be evaluated
and chosen in the light of ends finally selected independently of and prior to
the choice of means. This is the means-ends relationship of the root method.
But it follows from all that has just been said that such a means-ends
relationship is possible only to the extent that values are agreed upon, are
reconcilable, and are stable at the margin. Typically, therefore, such a
means-ends relationship is absent from the branch method, where means and ends
are simultaneously chosen.
Yet any departure from the means-ends
relationship of the root method will strike some readers as inconceivable. For
it will appear to them that only in such a relationship is it possible to determine
whether one policy choice is better or worse than another. How can an
administrator know whether he has made a wise or foolish decision if he is
without prior values or objec-tives by which to judge his decisions? The answer
to this question calls up the third distinctive difference between root and
branch methods: how to decide the best policy.
