The Garbage Can Model: Why HR Decisions Are Really Solutions Looking for Problems

60-Second Summary

Cohen, March & Olsen (1972) modelled organizations as 'garbage cans' where four streams — problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities — collide independently.
Decisions don't emerge from rational problem-solving; they emerge when a solution, a problem, and a decision-maker happen to be in the same room at the same time.
In HR: a new CHRO arrives with a favourite framework (solution) looking for a problem (turnover, morale, engagement) that becomes the official narrative.
The fix isn't to eliminate garbage-can dynamics — you can't. It's to slow the coupling: pre-mortems, problem-first framing, and separation of solution-shopping from problem-diagnosis.
Most 'strategic HR initiatives' are opportunistic couplings dressed up as strategy. Naming that is the first step to doing better.

A new CHRO arrives. Within six weeks the org has a new competency framework, a new engagement vendor, and a rebrand of performance conversations. Ask what problem each solves and the answers are vague. Ask why now and the answer is really 'because the CHRO arrived'. That is the garbage-can model in one paragraph.

What Cohen, March & Olsen actually argued

“An organization is a collection of choices looking for problems, issues and feelings looking for decision situations in which they might be aired, solutions looking for issues to which they might be the answer, and decision makers looking for work.”
— Cohen, March & Olsen, Administrative Science Quarterly (1972)

Their model describes 'organized anarchies' — organizations with unclear preferences, unclear technology, and fluid participation. Universities were the original case; modern companies fit uncomfortably well. Decisions emerge when four independent streams — problems, solutions, participants, choice opportunities — happen to converge in the same 'can'. The rational sequence (identify problem → evaluate options → choose) is rarer than we like to admit.

How the model shows up in HR

The four streams in HR

1
Problems
Turnover in engineering, low engagement scores, an unhappy exec team, a compliance letter, a viral internal Slack thread.
2
Solutions
OKRs, competency frameworks, culture decks, engagement platforms, DEI training, a new HRIS, a leadership program, generative AI pilots.
3
Participants
CHRO, CEO, board, a vocal VP, a consultant just hired, the People Ops team who happen to have bandwidth.
4
Choice opportunities
Board meeting, annual plan, offsite, town hall, budget cycle, new-CHRO first 90 days, crisis response.

Only 'problems' pretends to drive the decision. In practice, whichever solution is loudest, whichever participant is available, and whichever choice opportunity is on the calendar do most of the actual work. That's why HR initiatives often outlive their original rationale and mutate to fit whatever problem is trending.

Rational-decision narrative vs garbage-can reality

The story told externally

We identified engagement as a strategic risk
Evaluated 12 vendors against criteria
Selected the best-fit platform
Rolled out to align with strategic priorities

What actually happened

The new CHRO liked this vendor from a previous role
The board asked what we're doing about engagement
The vendor demo was scheduled the week the budget opened
The problem statement was written after the vendor was chosen

Design fixes for problem-first decision-making

Slowing the garbage-can coupling

1
Problem-first briefs
Before evaluating any solution, write a 1-page problem brief: what's happening, evidence, size of impact, who is affected, what happens if we do nothing. No vendor logos allowed.
2
Separate solution-shopping from decision-making
Time-box exploration (30 days) before any budget conversation. The vendor demo and the buying decision must not be the same meeting.
3
Pre-mortems
Assume this initiative failed in 18 months. Write the post-mortem now. If the failure modes are all obvious, you have a garbage-can decision dressed as strategy.
4
Sunset every program
Every new initiative gets an explicit sunset review at 12–18 months. Programs adopted in a garbage-can moment tend to outlive their reason unless killing them is scheduled.
5
Name the streams honestly in your own team
'This is a new-CHRO solution looking for a problem — let's find the actual problem first' is a healthy sentence.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Isn't this just cynicism?

No — Cohen, March & Olsen are describing how complex organizations actually decide. The model is descriptive first. Cynicism is refusing to design around it; awareness is designing better.

Are garbage-can decisions always bad?

No. Sometimes the loose coupling produces surprisingly good outcomes. The point is to reduce the rate of miss, not eliminate opportunism.

How do I spot one in flight?

Ask 'what evidence would change our mind about this initiative?' If nobody can answer, you're in a garbage-can decision.

Takeaways

Most 'strategic' HR programs are opportunistic couplings of a preferred solution to a convenient problem.
Problem-first briefs and pre-mortems slow the coupling and improve average decision quality.
Sunset reviews are the antidote to programs that outlive their justification.
Naming garbage-can dynamics honestly inside your team is a leadership move, not a cynical one.