Logic of Appropriateness
Updated 2026-08-05
INTRODUCTION
English translation pending.
CORE DEFINITION
Proposed by James March and Johan Olsen as a counterpart to the logic of consequences, the logic of appropriateness describes decision making driven by identity, rules, and the question of what is fitting in a given situation. Actors match their role and the context to a rule and then act on it. The core claim is that much behavior follows role-based rules rather than outcome calculation. The qualification is that both logics operate together, and which dominates varies with the setting.
SCAFFOLDING EFFECT
Reduce cognitive load
- Use Role Reading: Ask what identity the person holds and what that identity prescribes here. - Use Rule Identification: Determine which norm the setting makes salient before predicting behavior. - Use Identity Design: Change what people believe their role requires to shift behavior more durably than incentives.
Anchor fast decisions
Roles carry expectations about how someone in that position behaves, and acting consistently with them maintains identity and standing. Because the matching happens quickly and largely without calculation, behavior follows rules rather than expected outcomes. This makes role-based action more stable and predictable than interest-based action, and it explains conduct that appears to sacrifice advantage.
MINIMUM ACTION
In progress 0/1Practice this model in one real situation:
account_treeGenealogyexpand_more
menu_bookReferencesexpand_more
Source support: Explicit
- en.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_of_appropriatenessverified
PRIVATE NOTES · Only visible to you
SAVED Q&A
ENTRY Q&A · Private saving available
Ask with a clear boundary
thinkingmodels answers from published entry context only.
Your question is sent to thinkingmodels. The answer uses public entry context only.
RELATED MODELS