





































Education, Language and Sociology Research 

ISSN 2690-3644 (Print) ISSN 2690-3652 (Online) 

Vol. 6, No. 2, 2025 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr 

86 
 

Original Paper 

The Political Scientist as an Economist: 

Decoding Bounded Rationality, AI (Artificial Intelligence), and 

Organizational Decision Making in the Works of Herbert A. 

Simon 

Earnest N. Bracey, Ph.D., DPA1* 

1 Social Sciences Department, College of Southern Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA 

* Earnest N. Bracey, Email: earnest.bracey@csn.edu 

 

Received: April 10, 2025       Accepted: April 27, 2025     Online Published: May 12, 2025 

doi:10.22158/elsr.v6n2p86       URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elsr.v6n2p86 

 

Abstract 

Herbert A. Simon’s theories of administration successfully bring together an understanding of how and 

why decisions are made in respective organizations. Moreover, throughout his significant works, Simon 

sought practical solutions to particular administrative and management problems — that is, he lectured 

on how to organize and put in place practical solutions for workers or individuals (in companies), while 

they make significant contributions to organizational goals, using his theory of bounded rationality. In 

this regard, this paper also tries to concisely present some of Simon’s thoughts and ideas (in specific and 

general ways) about the future of AI (Artificial Intelligence) in businesses. Simon died on February 9, 

2001; but before his death, he made major theoretical ideas that provide us (today) with a fundamental 

way to study administrative management, while providing us with empirical observations and different 

patterns for understanding the future behavior of people or workers in different organizations and/or 

other social and political institutions. For his profound and important works, Herbert A. Simon, who was 

basically a political scientist, was awarded the 1978 Nobel Prize in Economics Sciences.  

Keywords 

bounded rationality, artificial intelligence, political science, decision-making, economic, public 

administration, entrepreneurship 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 2, 2025 

87 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

1. Introduction: AI and Unbounded Reality in Organizations 

From the start, it should be noted that in most biographies about Herbert A. Simon — a Nobel Laureate 

in Economics — he is described as an economist; however, “he never taught the subject [economics], 

but lectured in political science, administration, and psychology” (“Simon, Herbert,” 1994, p. 1016). 

Nevertheless, it also should be explained that, “many [academic] subjects such as political science and 

sociology that were once regarded as part of the study of economics have today become separate 

[academic] disciplines” (“economics,” 1975, p. 830), or “separate, definable [areas] of study” (“political 

science,” 1975, p. 2180). Simon was also “widely considered to be a founder of the field of artificial 

intelligence,” or AI and other computer technologies, related to businesses (“A Tribute,” 2019, p. 1). 

Furthermore, he first cleared the way for a new understanding of the AI technology in the company. In a 

nutshell, with “co-piloting” processes, AI is the “ability of a [sophisticated] machine to perform tasks 

thought to require human intelligence” (“artificial intelligence,” 2000, p. 95) (Note 1) in respective 

organizations. The challenge of Artificial Intelligence (or AI) today is something Herbert Simon 

advocated for during his academic life — that is, “to understand how computer capabilities must be 

organized in order to reproduce the kinds of thinking that are thought to be uniquely human, such as 

visual pattern recognition, complex decision making, and the use of natural language” (“artificial 

intelligence,” 2000, p. 95). Equally important, and in this specific way, Simon was an early pioneer of 

AI, paving the way for Nobel Prize winning physicists, Geoffrey Hinton and John Hopfield, who also 

predicted “that AI will end up having a “huge influence” on [our] civilization, bringing improvements in 

productivity, [education,] health care” (“Pair of AI,” 2024, p. 10A) (Note 2), and other fields of study, 

while providing tremendous benefits for humankind in the workplace. That being said, AI can also 

provide organizational knowledge and benefit our understanding of the world around us. More 

importantly, AI or augmented intelligence will eventually be made widely available for human use and 

consumption in the near future, which Simon absolutely supported and predicted. Indeed, one of Simon’s 

most important ideas was that decision-making, while using AI, would be the technological wave of the 

future; and “go up by an order of magnitude” (Cowen, 2024, p. 3). Moreover, as Ellen Moons of the 

Nobel Prize Committee at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, in 2024, tells us: “Collectively, 

humans carry the responsibility for using this new [AI] technology in a safe and ethical way and [if 

conceivably possible] for the greatest benefit of [humanity]” (Cowen, 2024, p. 3) (Note 3), and 

organizations. 

Of course, Simon’s theoretical ideas also branched-off in an array of different academic/educational 

directions, such as “computer science to psychology, [public] administration and economics” (“A Tribute,” 

2019, p. 1) (Note 4) — and political science and management. Additionally, he was also committed to 

the study of artificial intelligence (AI) and other technological innovations in the workplace. 

Equally important, Simon, who was an iconoclastic, administrative thinker, became a prominent figure 

in different academic fields, as mentioned; and we should be enamored by his splendid achievements in 

the liberal arts and technical/graduate education. With that said, he (Simon) was also deeply philosophical 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 2, 2025 

88 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

in his diverse works, lectures/discussions — and rendering of information about what makes an 

organization tick. As far as economics is concerned, Simon firmly believed that the discipline should also 

be a “study of how human beings allocate scarce resources [in companies] to produce various 

commodities and how those commodities are distributed for consumption among the people in [a given] 

society” (“economics,” 1975, p. 829). Moreover, Simon persuasively pointed out that: 

People cannot act the way economists assume they [should] act. Instead of maximizing their 

utility, he argued, they satisfice. That is, they do as well as they think is possible. One way 

they do so is by devising rules of thumbs (for example: save 10 percent of after-tax income 

every month) that economize on the cost of collecting information and on the cost of thinking. 

(“Simon, Herbert,” 1993, p. 835) (Note 5)  

Simon’s intuitive insight into economics is relatively easy to digest because of the explanatory power of 

his (astute) arguments, which are akin to Adam Smith’s economic philosophy. Smith, of course, is 

considered the first major economist. Further, Simon believed in the efficacy of the political economy, 

which is considered “a branch of the science that proposes two distinct objects: first, to provide a plentiful 

revenue or subsistence for the people, or more property to enable them to provide such a revenue or 

subsistence for themselves; and secondly, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient 

for the public services” (Smith, 2019, p. 397) (Note 6). Theoretically, Simon was able to advance his 

ideas of the possible, while outlining systematic facts, methods, and specific principles in organizations. 

In connection with this, Simon put forward the notion that we (humans) should expand our technological 

knowledge, while being fully informed about the critical issues effecting the organization; and 

particularly when making tough decisions. 

Also, as will be discussed, Herbert A. Simon was an “early critic of the idea that people have unlimited 

information processing capabilities. [Indeed,] he (Simon) advanced the term “bounded rationality” to 

describe a more realistic conception of human problem solving ability” in the company. Additionally, 

Simon was absolutely right when he posited that, “the failure to incorporate bounded rationality into 

economic models is just bad economics — the equivalent to presuming the existence of a free lunch” 

(Thaler & Mullainathan, 2008, p. 34). Perhaps more important — and presented with considerable 

standing — Simon was able to shine a light on economics where people make — right or wrong — 

organizational decisions. In essence, he “argued for recognizing a multiplicity of factors (including 

psychological ones) in corporate decision [making], rather than emphasizing the achievement of 

maximum profits as the primary motivation” (“Simon, Herbert,” 2000, p. 1486). It should be noted here 

that, Simon was also an original thinker, whose life exemplified the economic and social currents of his 

day. And, in 1978, he was awarded “the Nobel Prize in economics for his pioneering research into the 

decision-making process within economic organizations” (“Herbert Alexander,” 2008, pp. 589-590). Put 

simply, Simon was able to critically analyze administrative things, while focusing specifically on 

bounded rationality in organizations. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 2, 2025 

89 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2. Political Science and the Rational Model of Administration 

Not surprisingly, Simon’s ideas across many social/academic disciplines are relevant today as when he 

first wrote about them. As a political scientist, Simon’s work also merged into organizational politics. In 

essence, some political actors believe that some people shouldn’t be forced to do specific things in 

organizations against their will or make decisions that are politically, personally, and economically 

irrational — or motivated.  

According to professor David Schuman at the University of Massachusetts and professor Dick W. Olufs 

III (1993) at the Pacific Lutheran University, “Any decision maker would be empirically wrong, 

according to [Herbert A.] Simon, if he or she tried to apply a rational model to human beings. The 

decision must be satisfied with choices that are good enough” (p. 131) (Note 7). Moreover, when it comes 

to political science, we must especially consider this academic discipline that Herbert Simon loved so 

much, which “describes and analyses the operations of government, the state, and other factors which 

influence their behavior, such as economics.” Furthermore, “a major concern [of political science] is to 

establish how [political] power is exercised, and by whom in resolving conflict within [a respective] 

society” (“Simon, Herbert,” 1994, p. 1016) (Note 8). Politics, of course, can be explosive and dynamic 

because of the changes and decision-making processes that are made on an almost constant or continuous 

basis; but politics doesn’t always answer questions about the managing of public affairs, or tell us why 

humans in the organization, or a company, do the things that they do; therefore, maximum reactionality 

should be studied by political scientists, economists, and others. Finally, in politics, people are not 

generally pragmatic or have rational judgment when trying to make good (organizational) decisions. 

According to Simon (1976): “In the study of organizations, the operative employee must be at the focus 

of attention, for the success of the structure will be judged by his [or her] performance within it” (p. 3) 

(Note 9).  

To wit, “Political science is commonly divided into a number of subfields, the most prominent being 

political theory, national government, comparative government, international relations, and special areas 

shared with other social sciences such as sociology, psychology, and economics” (“political science,” 

1975, p. 2180) (Note 10). Hence, a study of political science will also allow us to learn and advance our 

knowledge about organizational decision-making; and to even understand government organizational 

policies that might negatively affect workers in a company. Furthermore, framing the way decisions are 

made in political and social organizations can sometimes be presented in cognitive, or bias ways, which 

does not help with making important decisions, particularly if we have difficulty embracing the notion 

of human agency. But the burning question is whether or not good/better decisions can be made in any 

organization with political problems. To say the least, many companies don’t have some kind of built-in 

political contingency when it comes to organizational decision-making. About politics and political 

science, Simon (1978) famously wrote: 

In the “politics” of science… I have had two guiding principles — to work for the “hardening” 

of the social sciences so that they will be better equipped with the tools they need for their 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 2, 2025 

90 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

difficult research tasks; and to work for close relations between natural scientists and social 

scientists so that they can jointly contribute their special knowledge and skills to those many 

complex questions of public policy that call for both kinds of wisdom. (p. 5) 

With this excerpt from his Nobel Prize speech, Simon was right on point; and before his death, he realized 

that “critical thinking” was also necessary for understanding political systems and the continuance of 

Democratic organizations and governments. This is also to say that Simon held the general principle of 

supporting democracy through good (business practices and) politics, so to speak, not the attainment of 

political power for its own sake. In this respect, Simon was also a political philosopher, who demanded 

reverence for companies and the complete democratic-decision process. Simon, of course, understood 

that it was imperative to understand power and politics when making political and organizational 

decisions. According to professor of political theory at the Department of Politics and International 

Relations, University of Reading, Catriona McKinnon (2015) writes: “It is true that power is a ubiquitous 

feature of political life; it is equally true that concepts of power shape our understanding, and evaluation 

of political life” (p. 319). Therefore, an analysis of political power is central to the decision-making 

process even in organizations. Simon even put to rest the belief that the success of making good decisions 

isn’t always possible or necessary in politics. In simple terms, Simon also determined that technologies 

are needed in running successful businesses or companies, as it (technology) can be the common-

denominator in predicting the long-term effect of political decisions made in organizations; and such 

organizational decisions underscore the importance of maintaining continuity in different companies. 

Additionally, having such political and technological “capabilities” would “also mean that the world 

might be better over some very long time horizon…” (Cowen, 2024, p. 3) (Note 11). To be certain, Simon 

was an unorthodox scholar who believed wholeheartedly that, “a decision should be correct and efficient 

and must be practical enough to be implemented and any decision that involves alternatives should be 

towards an organizational goal” — but put in place in smart and ethical ways. This is to say that, “the 

task of decision-making is to select the alternative results in the more preferred set of all the consequences” 

(“Herbert Simon Biography,” 2019, pp. 1-2). After all, incorrect judgment about political things can lead 

to a dissatisfied end. Hence, Simon was more interested in objective behaviors when it came to making 

political decisions — that is, rather than embrace some type of “group think” philosophy — where 

political leaders or other decision-makers come together and make serious mistakes or errors, particularly 

when making organizational decisions — which is always a dangerous alternative or cursed proposition. 

Many academics might agree that Simon’s scholarship was/is exceptionally good, all things considered, 

particularly when it comes to his views about organizational decision-making. Indeed, “The important 

questions for Simon revolved around how decisions [are or] were made,” and thought about. And, 

“although he rejected the one-best-way formula for decision making, he did not at all reject 

[organizational] efficiency” (Schuman & Olufs, 1993, p. 129). Furthermore, Simon’s research suggest an 

entirely different view about administrative behavior, rather than accepting “conventional wisdom,” or 

outright misinformation about everything going on in an organization. Accordingly, Simon “[rejected] 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 2, 2025 

91 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

the conventional theory of the firm as an omnisciently rational profit-maximizing [entrepreneurial 

enterprise], and that decision makers must be content with a satisfactory alternative” (“Simon, Herbert,” 

1994, p. 1016), especially in astonishing or difficult circumstances. To be certain, Professor of 

Management at the Graduate Business School of New York University, the late Peter Drucker (1985) 

wrote that: “Entrepreneurial strategies [in organizations] are as important as purposeful innovation and 

intrapreneurial management” (p. 251) (Note 12). However, as Herbert A. Simon writes in his famous 

study: 

[The] entrepreneur is substituted by a configuration of decision makers whose intellect is 

limited and cooperates to get the right solution for the troubles they would confront. In reality, 

people in large organizations cannot put all these [things] into action for obtaining rational 

decisions. Due to the limitation of uncertainty of the future and the ability to process 

information, people “satisfice” to result in satisfactory outcomes. People in the organization 

usually come up with decisions for certain goals, which are adjusted when the results 

[ultimately] do not match. (“Herbert Simon Biography,” 2019, p. 4) 

It happened that Herbert A. Simon wrote determinedly about such heady, administrative matters, and so-

called ersatz business organizations. In Administrative Behavior, Simon also “rejected the idea of [the] 

“economic man” who optimizes rather than introducing the concept of a businessman who satisfices” 

(“Herbert Simon Biography,” 2019, p. 4). Further in this regard, Simon rejected the historical notion of 

the infallibilities of men and women who make decisions based on their experiences, which can be 

fallible. To be sure, politicians as well as businessmen or leaders can make mistakes — behavioral or 

otherwise. And even if individuals in specific organizations act in traditional ways, it doesn’t mean that 

they have all the answers or engender automatic, correct actions when it comes to the process of 

management and decision-making. In a larger context, Simon absolutely “sought to replace the highly 

simplified classical approach to [administrative and] economic modeling — based on a concept of the 

single decision-making, profit-maximizing entrepreneur — with an approach that recognized multiple 

factors that contribute to decision making.” Indeed, “this theoretical framework,” on the part of Simon, 

“provides a more realistic understanding of a world in which decision making can affect prices and 

outputs,” while focusing on the unique needs of a particular company (“Herbert A. Simon,” 2019, p. 2) 

(Note 13). It seemed inevitable that Simon would make his reputation by labeling the process of decision 

making as “satisficing,” while concluding that, “human decision making could be best [exhibited by] 

bounded rationality” (“Herbert A. Simon,” 2019, p. 3), as opposed to objective rationality, which 

essentially “leads to only one possible rational conclusion — that is, satisficing can lead to many rational 

conclusions, depending upon the information available and the imagination…” (“Herbert A. Simon,” 

2019, p. 3). In Simon’s book (1976), Administrative Behavior, he writes: “Since “good” administration 

is behavior that is realistically adapted to its ends, just as “good” business is economic behavior 

accurately calculated to realize gain, a theory of administrative decisions will of necessity be somewhat 

preoccupied with the rational aspects of choice” (p. 62). In the final analysis, Simon offered a path 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 2, 2025 

92 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

forward for improving human decision-making in a respective organization, while using cutting-edge 

(administrative and management) technologies, like AI or artificial intelligence. As later discussed, 

artificial intelligence (AI) will become a permanent part of improving different companies in the future. 

But it should be understood that, “Our narrowing sense of human capability did not begin with the rise 

of artificial intelligence…,” but “it originated in the academy a half-century ago” (Beha, 2024, p. 10) 

(Note 14), with men or professors and academics like Herbert A. Simon.  

 

3. The Notion of Public Administration: Practice and Theory 

Simon provided a straightforward way of thinking intuitively about the limits of choice — that is, when 

it came to decision-making, he defied economic and administrative convention; and he did not accept 

established norms or ways of behaving in an organization by inept leaders, especially when they take 

risks and make compulsive and excessively optimistic business projections about the way things might 

go in a particular company. Also, unsurprisingly, it should be noted that irrational times might require 

the ideas and principles of public administration, particularly with today’s economic and divisive, 

political discourse. According to Schuman and Olufs III (1993), “one way of defining public 

administration has to do with people coming together, dealing to do things, and having an administration 

execute the public’s business,” hopefully in a most principal way (p. 62). In this regard, Simon largely 

ushered in the notion that, “what should make public administration special is the word public, which 

ties administration to people.” Hence, “the people, by acting together by acting politically, should 

dominate the administrative dynamic.” (p. 24). Or this particular attitude should be the MO or modus 

operandi of business organizations. To be certain, workers in an organization can be complex and 

contradictory, because of politics or their ideological beliefs, as well as having confidence in what they 

are doing — or performing their specific work. But Simon believed that some organizational problems 

are intractable, which might jeopardize the main point of making significant and viable decisions. 

Equally important, as management thinker, Charles Handy, in his seminal 1989 book, The Age of 

Unreason stated: Organizations or “businesses should behave like communities or villages, treating 

employees [or workers] like citizens who have rights and privileges and a share in the profits.” Handy 

goes on to reason that, “it [is] just common sense that people [are] more likely to be committed to their 

work and a company’s mission if they [have] a hand in shaping it” (Rifkin, 2024, p. 29). And these people 

or individuals should be responsible for directing or carrying on business affairs — and are willing to act 

in certified or endorsed ways. Accordingly, we should note that in the post-World War II period, 

organizational administrations sought to maximize efficiency — through scientific management — while 

being otherwise neutral about (political) values and objectives/goals. Indeed, “as applied to public 

administration, the (special) credo of scientific management came in time to be characterized by attention 

to [public] administration without much stress on the public part of the term.” However, by placing faith 

in “principles” in the science of administration, emphasis is also on the science of management, which 

ultimately should be the driving force behind any organizations. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 2, 2025 

93 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Additionally, managers of different types of organizations should have a clear mind when making 

(business) decisions, while essentially letting go of some (sacred) administrative values, if necessary 

(Martin, 1952, p. 667). No doubt, Simon believed that organizations or corporations should invest in their 

future development, while cultivating a more engaged (and loyal) work force. Furthermore, in this regard, 

Simon understood that the practice and study of public administration as it related to political science 

was essentially pragmatic and normative rather than theoretical and value free (“Macropodia,” 1986, p. 

335). In this respect, as John D. Millet (1956) wrote:  

In the administrative experience arising from World War II — experience recorded on a scale 

never before attempted in the history of Western civilization — there was still no discernible, 

common conception of administrative understanding. Most writers were content to describe 

events and personalities; [however,] they were reluctant to theorize. (p. 176) 

Clearly, in the fields of public administration and politics, things have shifted in terms of organizational 

decision-making — that is, with a behavioral and academic approach to administration. Simon, of course, 

was one of the academic leaders of this changed or approach, as he envisioned the necessity of providing 

a theoretical basis for viewing administrative behavior, because during his time, there wasn’t a 

comprehensive theory of administration to give meaning and clarity to the entire academic field of study. 

Furthermore, over the years, Simon’s intuitive work and research has been accepted in many 

organizational fields of endeavor. Ironically, however, Simon (1976) wrote that: “the literature of 

administration has not been lacking in “theory,” any more than it has in descriptive and empirical studies.” 

He goes on: “What has been lacking has been a bridge between these two, so that theory could provide 

a guide to the design of “critical” experiments and studies; while experimental studies could provide a 

sharp test and corrective of theory” (p. 4). And with a sort of academic stubbornness, Simon believed 

that some organizations should have a sense of urgency — that is, when it comes to connecting practice 

with theory, as there can be a plethora of irritating, organizational idiosyncrasies and mistakes when it 

comes to decision making.  

Also, it should be noted that as early as 1938, Chester I. Barnard in his seminal work, The Functions of 

the Executive, challenged the traditional principles of (public) administration by showing how values and 

administration were not finite or settled. In addition, like Simon, Barnard devised a theory that focused 

mainly on carrying out business decisions, which was/is central to the study of administration. What 

should be important about understanding this particular administrative issue is: If there is something in 

any organization that needs tweaking, or to fix a firm’s problems, it must be done or accomplished in an 

expeditious manner. In his book, Administrative Behavior, Simon continued Barnard’s challenge by 

asserting that the realities of administrative organization is not necessarily found in the formalities of 

structure, but it is in the values and attitudes of workers and their (social and political) behavior (Millet, 

1956, p. 176). Simon’s insightful book about administration also explains exactly what the process of 

administration is, and what might be the future of organizations — and how they relate to other kinds of 

businesses/companies. Simon, moreover, emphasized the need to have organizational structure(s), 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 2, 2025 

94 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

reflecting the complexities and dynamics of a respective company. All in all, understanding elements of 

organizational and administrative affairs are still especially necessary. Simon’s point was that we cannot 

prescribe any single structure or specific angle, such as having a wide berth or “span of control” in a 

company, particularly when it comes to making important organizational decisions. Therefore, in an 

authoritative way, Simon was able to demystify the methods of organizational behavior. In addition, it 

should be pointed out that organizational managers/leaders are not perfect, as they sometimes make 

serious mistakes. More importantly, even some prominent leaders don’t make good decisions, either. 

Equally important, there is no such thing as perfection when it comes to most work. Therefore, we need 

to have a base structure — or a factual understanding of why organizational decisions are made in the 

first place. Naturally, this suggestion is not a new position, but Simon’s way of thinking was/is 

noteworthy because he believed that humans could harness the power of management in most 

organizations. Consequently, organizations, firms, or companies can become more proficient as time goes 

on by demonstrating a rational need for mastery and development. To be sure, as Simon believed, 

leader(s) of a business or company must engage — seriously and meaningfully — with inside and outside 

business actors or forces, while quickly addressing various organizational problems. Of course, 

embracing AI technologies will help to create decision-making systems that can recognize and connect 

with other workers in different, relatable organizations. 

 

4. Conclusions 

Herbert A. Simon’s critique of administrative traditionalists was/is also significant because he explained 

how administration, in essence, should be a study of human behavior, like with world politics, which is 

“not a pseudo-science of building blocks but a true science of human relations” (Millet, 1956, p. 671) 

and behavior. For some political scientists, this argument is rare in politics and organizational decision-

making; however, the theory provides a way forward for us to really understand the concepts of 

administration. Simon’s basic premise is that an analysis of decision-making, which involves human 

behavior or practices, is the basis of political science in administration. Simon also advocated for 

decisions that effectively and efficiently accomplished organizational principles and objectives. Indeed, 

Simon’s theory (1976) is stated explicitly in the following: 

Since [the] “principle of efficiency” is characteristic of any activity that attempts rationally 

to maximize the attainment of certain ends with the use of scarce means, it is as characteristic 

of economic theory as it is of administrative theory. (p. 39) 

The above concept today might strike us as being imprecise; however, it shouldn’t detract us from 

Simon’s important administrative framework. This is also to say that Simon ultimately rejected the 

conventional theory of the firm (or organization) being omniscient and/or “all-knowing” about a certain 

business; therefore, other choices or administrative alternatives should be made (“Simon, Herbert,” 1994, 

p. 1016). In this respect, Simon sought to provide the general framework of decision making with the 

notion of bounded rationality, as well as providing the specific objectives that should be accomplished 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 2, 2025 

95 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

in different organizations. But there will always be a litany of different challenges in a company that 

cannot be solved rationally, or in a rational way. But perhaps AI can be used to alert members of an 

organization to be more responsible and efficient. This suggestion is the essence of Simon’s theory about 

administration. Thus, “bounded rationality makes possible bureaucratic control as well as domination in 

general” (Perrow, 1986, p. 123). Toward this end, Simon’s notion of bounded rationality is perhaps the 

most important part of this theory. Which is to say that an organization will function better if humans are 

rationally less bounded. Moreover, if organizations incorporate AI into their business model, it may or 

may not jeopardize their standing in a company; and it might also create sometimes unpredictability, or 

move a business organization from stability to uncertainty. Equally important, as Simon (1976) argued: 

“two persons given the same skills, the same objectives and values, [as well as] the same knowledge and 

information, can [rationally] decide only upon the same course of action” (p. 39). However, there are 

also limits to human rationality in organizations; therefore, the information on which decisions are made 

by leaders must be correct; and personal, ideological/political beliefs should be controlled. All this mean 

is that because of limits in cognitive and behavioral capacities, it is necessary and proper to develop 

organizational procedures to promote rational decisions. Moreover, individuals or workers in 

organizations will have hierarchical or authoritative relations with men or women, who provide specific 

rules that are not always rational, or conducive to organizational goals. To be certain, Simon indicated 

that there is a need to compensate for the limits of rationality with organizational objectives, to improve 

the firm’s decision-making processes, particularly when devising plans to expand work and 

organizational effectiveness and efficiency. 

More importantly, it should be understood that attempting to separate administration from policy or 

politics is artificial in that policy and value judgements in organizations are implicit in most significant, 

administrative decisions. Indeed, administrators/leaders should focus on facts and the means to achieve 

the goals or objectives of any given organization. To wit, leaders or managers should make it a priority 

to ensure that their leadership is in sync with outside administrative actors and company workers, or 

“rank-in-file” employees, while following through with their ideas to make things happen. Of course, 

Simon did not believe that administrative behavior could be understood only in terms of its social, 

political, economic, or technological, and physical environments. In fact, Simon has been widely 

criticized for ignoring the influence of outside environments, while focusing almost entirely on what 

goes on inside the organization or firm/company — and what should be really possible or manageable. 

Nevertheless, Simon acknowledged the sociological and psychological factors, especially in terms of 

employing Artificial Intelligence — that is, when he advocated for using new (AI) technologies and 

strategies in different businesses and organizations. To be sure, Simon believed that AI could be 

potentially great at administrative and management work, as he proposed frameworks for integrating or 

factoring in how such advanced technology could be used to improve companies and their organizational 

behavior. Indeed, Simon considered how we could remake or make industrial firms organize for the 

betterment of workers and the respective organization. In this way, he was able to communicate an 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 2, 2025 

96 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

understanding of AI (or Artificial Intelligence) for the future, as it provides for authenticity in business 

and administrative synchronicities, particularly when it comes to organizational management. But 

whatever might evolve in the future in regard to this AI technology, “it makes sense [today] that even the 

more innovative tools [must] still rely on humans for certain parts of the process” (Riquier, 2024, p. 2B) 

(Note 15), or incorporating the necessary human touch. And theoretically, AI technology will never 

dissipate; and it will significantly increase in various organizations. And as journalist Andrew R. Chow 

(2024) tells us: “artificial intelligence (AI) will become a cornerstone of modern life” (pp. 21-22), and in 

business organizations. Furthermore, this AI technology trend will only accelerate in most organizations, 

as it will, perhaps, become respectfully a part of their core DNA. In other words, AI technology will give 

organizations a glimpse into the future of businesses and industrial enterprises.   

We must also keep in mind that among Simon’s many insights on decision-making, he advanced the 

central role of Artificial Intelligence (AI); and as mentioned, he pursued and explained the use of 

emerging computer technologies and AI in business organizations — that is, when making important 

decisions (“Herbert A. Simon,” 2019, p. 2) (Note 16). As for the last decade of his life, Simon participated 

and contributed to many academic journals and discussions about how such cutting-edge AI technologies 

in the work-place could be utilized, which was transformative during his time. This convergence 

approach allowed Simon to greatly enlarged and enrich many administrative fields of study by suggesting 

new academic perspectives/directions. For example, Simon knew that hard work wasn’t always the 

answer to organizational (or administrative) problems, as things can go lopsided, horribly wrong or awry. 

Hence, decision-making in organizations should not be based on whims, possibilities, or behavioral 

reflexes. We might even question whether the promise of AI technology is overblown. But Simon 

recognized that AI should be put in place (eventually) to better organize a company’s 

administrative/business and organizational systems. Indeed, how exactly should AI technology act on 

behalf of workers in an organization? Moreover, how can organizations predict respective economic 

factors that might negatively affect their operations or bottom line? Finally, how can we improve the 

firm’s planning for the future with advanced technology? A broader version of this perspective would be 

for the manager or leader to have the mindset of making sound, administrative decisions, no matter the 

circumstances. Additionally, in this respect, the manager should play a (powerful) role in any 

organization in terms of rationality or administrative behavior. Of course, we should also recognize that 

company/business leaders may not have all the answers when making important decisions; but they must 

know and understand their personal and professional identities and capabilities. Hence, 

company/organizational leaders must cut through the fog of nonsense and so-called workable solutions, 

while fully expecting to raise the bar even further in their pursuit of organizational goals. In the final 

analysis, all businesses, firms/companies or organizations have imperfections, whose particular concerns 

should always be how to properly manage flaws and shortcomings to achieve a proper balance. Simon 

understood these issues more than most, because he strongly believed that mistakes, errors in judgment, 

or bad decisions could be catastrophic for an organization. It was as if Simon had some kind of unknown 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 2, 2025 

97 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

knowledge, which he was able to astutely talk and write about while he lived. In this respect, there was 

also an organic quality to Simon’s greatness; and he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his 

new paradigm shifting and brilliant findings, while diagnosing general principles and theories in 

organizational “decision-making” and administrative behavior. Beyond this, Simon’s obvious solutions 

(in regard to companies/businesses and firms) should never be ignored, because he attempted to address 

the paradox of administrative management and decision-making in the workplace — that is, particularly 

from an academic perspective. Finally, Simon believed that having a sound decision-making process 

would definitely help with any organizational endeavors, which is the key to good management — that 

is, having a relentless dedication to the administration and “good works” of a particular company. 

 

References 

A Tribute to Herbert Simon - Biography. (2019). Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/simon/bio.html 

Artificial Intelligence. (2000). In Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Encyclopedia (1st ed., p. 95). 

Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster Inc.  

Beha, C. (2024, December 29). A.I. Isn’t Genuis. We Are. In The New York Times (p. 10).  

Chow, A. R. (2024, December 30). Going All In. In Time Magazine (pp. 21-22). 

Cowen, T. (2024, October 23). AI will transform charity, too. In Las Vegas Sun (p. 3).  

Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York: Harper & 

Row. 

Economics. (1975). In The New Columbia Encyclopedia (4th ed., pp. 829-830). New York: Columbia 

University Press. 

Economics. (1994). In The Cambridge Encyclopedia (2nd ed., p. 369). London: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Herbert A. Simon: American Social Scientist. (2019, June 11).  Britannica.com (p. 2). Retrieved from 

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Herbert-A-Simon  

Herbert A. Simon - Biographical - NobelPrize.org. (2019). Retrieved from 

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1978/simon 

Herbert Alexander Simon. (2008). In The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (1st ed., pp. 589-590). 

Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. 

Herbert Simon Biography – Facts, Childhood, Family Life & Achievement of the Americ… (2019). pp. 

1-2. Retrieved from https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profies/herbert-simon-29.php  

Macropodia: Knowledge in Depth. (1986). In The New Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. 26, p. 335). 

Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica. 

Martin, R. C. (1952, September). Political Science and Public Administration: A Note on the State of the 

Union. The American Political Science Review, 3, 667. 

McKinnon, C.  (2015). Issues in Political Theory (3rd ed.). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 2, 2025 

98 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Millet, J. D. (1956, September). A Critical Appraisal of the Study of Public Administration. 

Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(2), 176. 

Pair of AI pioneers awarded Nobel Prize in physics. (2024, October 9). Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10A.  

Perrow, C. (1986). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay (3rd ed.). New York: Random House. 

Political Science. (1975). In The New Columbia Encyclopedia (4th ed., p. 2180). New York: Columbia 

University Press. 

Rifkin, G. (2024, December 15). Charles Handy, 92, Philosopher Who Predicted Work Shift Dies. In The 

New York Times (Obituaries) (p. 29). 

Riquier, A. (2024, October 10). AI upstarts are jumping into real estate business. USA Today, 2B.  

Schuman, D., & Olufs, D. W. (1993). Public Administration in the United States (2nd ed.). Massachusetts: 

D.C. Heath and Company.  

Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative 

Organization (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.  

Simon, Herbert. (1994). In The Cambridge Encyclopedia (2nd ed., p. 1016). London: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Simon, Herbert. (2000). In Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Encyclopedia (1st ed., p. 1486). Massachusetts: 

Merriam-Webster Inc. 

Simon, Herbert Alexander. (1993). In The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics (1st ed., p. 835). New 

York: Warner Books.  

Smith, A. (2019). The Wealth of Nation. New York: Ixia Press.  

Thaler, R. H., & Mullainathan, S. (2008). behavioral economics. In The Concise Encyclopedia of 

Economics (1st ed., p. 34). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. 

 

Notes 

Note 1. Artificial Intelligence might be more useful when it comes to workers in the organization, making 

sense of challenging decision-making activities. 

Note 2. AI based learning is most important in the economic context; and Simon understood this almost 

more than anyone. 

Note 3. AI will provide a new paradigm for understanding workers and how they behave in different 

organizations or businesses. 

Note 4. One key point with AI applications is that this technology might eventually dominate many 

aspects of our life and lives, which could be to our detriment. 

Note 5. It should be also noted that Herbert A. Simon, who trained as a political scientist, questioned the 

mainstream economists’ view of economic man as a lightning-quick calculator of cost and benefits. 

Simon’s proposed alternative view was of presenting people’s rationality as “bounded.” See Simon, 

Herbert Alexander. (1993). In The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics, 1st ed. (p. 835). New York: 

Warner Books.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 2, 2025 

99 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Note 6. It should be understood that economics is “the study of the allocation of scare resources among 

competing ends, the creation, and distribution of wealth, and national income.” See The Cambridge 

Encyclopedia, s.v. “economics,” P. 369. 

Note 7. According to Schuman and Olufs, “Simon’s basic insight is that people are not entirely rational, 

and that this [negatively] affects their behavior in organization.” See Schuman, D., & Olufs, D. W. (1993). 

Public Administration in the United States, 2nd ed. Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company.  

Note 8. It should be noted that in terms of political science, “there is a range of approaches, some of 

which draw upon other academic studies, such as sociology, economics, and psychology, and which can 

be regarded as subdisciplines of the [political science] subject.” See Simon, Herbert. (1994). In The 

Cambridge Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. (p. 1016). London: Cambridge University Press. 

Note 9. With his dissertation, Simon provides recurring themes of management and administration, while 

converging to define “bounded rationality.”  

Note 10. Simon described how the organization can be motivated by broader, higher administrative ideas, 

while balancing a commitment by the “rank-in-file” workers to its success. 

Note 11. It is certainly reasonable to monitor organizations, while studying the profound effect of 

decision-making in respective organizations.  

Note 12. According to Drucker, entrepreneurship is key, because it facilitates the strengthening of 

programs or policies that support the growth of businesses. Simon was of the same mind as the late 

professor Drucker when it comes to understanding entrepreneurship. 

Note 13. It should be pointed out here that, “Simon’s theory thus offers a way to consider the 

psychological aspects of decision making that classical economists have tended to ignore.” See Herbert 

A. Simon: American Social Scientist. (2019, June 11).  Britannica.com, p. 2. Retrieved from 

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Herbert-A-Simon... on 6/27/2019.  

Note 14. It should be pointed out that some organizations and workers can’t wrap their heads around a 

transformative way of doing organizational things, like making decisions, mainly because of the 

unfamiliarity with the process and AI technology. 

Note 15. The ever-evolving AI is a technology like nothing we could have previously imagined; and we 

should focus on how this technology will help us study and learn about decision-making in a business or 

firm. 

Note 16. We should always remember that one day humans might be heavily dependent on new AI 

technology applications in all academic and professional fields of endeavor. 

 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

EARNEST N. BRACEY is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, with over twenty years of active military 

service. He was commissioned through Reserve Officer Training (Distinguished Military Graduate) at 

Jackson State University, where he graduated with honors (Magna Cum Laude), and received his 

Bachelor of Arts degree in political science in 1974. In addition, he received the Masters of Public 

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Herbert-A-Simon


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 2, 2025 

100 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Administration in 1979 from Golden Gate University, his Masters of Arts degree in International Affairs 

in 1983 from the Catholic University of America, his Masters of Business Administration in 2009 from 

California Coast University, and his doctorate of Public Administration (with emphasis in Public Policy) 

in 1993 from George Mason University. Dr. Bracey also earned his Ph.D. in Education from Capella 

University in 1999.  

A recipient of numerous military awards and civilian honors, he is also a graduate of the United States 

Naval War College and the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and 

previously served as Director of Administration at the prestigious Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 

Washington, D.C. He was also recognized as Who’s Who Among America’s Teachers in 2002, 2003, 

2004, 2005, and 2006. 

Dr. Bracey is professor of political science, and currently teaches American Politics and Black American 

History at the College of Southern Nevada in Las Vegas. He was formerly Chair and Professor of Political 

Science at Jackson State University and Chairperson of the Political Science and History Department at 

Hampton University. He has also served as an editorial board-member for the Nevada Historical Society 

Quarterly. His work has appeared in professional journals and other publications, and he is the author of 

the books, Prophetic Insights: The Higher Education and Pedagogy of African Americans, University 

Press of America, 1999, On Racism: Essays On Black Popular Culture, African American Politics, and 

the New Black Aesthetics, University Press of America, 2003, Daniel “Chappie” James: The First 

African American Four Star General, McFarland & Company, Inc., 2003, Places in Political Time: 

Voices From the Black Diaspora, University Press of America, 2005, The Moulin Rouge and Black 

Rights in Las Vegas, McFarland & Company, Inc., 2009, and Miles Davis and Jazz as Religion, 

Lexington Books, 2021. He also co-authored the book, American Politics and Culture Wars (2001). He 

is also the author of the novels, Choson (1994) and The Black Samurai (1998), and the books of short 

stories, Requiems for Black Folks (2002) and The Big Black Three (2022). 

 


