Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 58, Issue 5, pp 602–613

Drama theory: dispelling the myths

Special Issue Paper


Drama theory is little more than a decade old and has already proved a versatile tool for analysing collaborations and conflicts. However, its widespread use has, it is argued here, been inhibited by a number of factors, some trivial, others more substantial. Following a resume of its emergence and a sketch of the ways that it has thus far been used, this paper sets out to examine and dispel the mist of prejudice, ambiguity and misinterpretation that has accumulated. Some specific application pathways are described, demonstrating how the strengths of the drama theory framework can be most effectively be exploited in practice. The paper includes some pointers for future development and exploitation.


collaboration conflict drama theory interaction problem structuring rationality 


  1. Bennett PG (1977). Towards a theory of hypergames. Omega 5: 749–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett PG (1980). Hypergames: developing a model of conflict. Futures 12: 489–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett PG (1995). Modelling decisions in international relations: game theory and beyond. Mershon Rev Int Stud 39: 19–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett PG (1998). Confrontation analysis as a diagnostic tool. Eur J Opl Res 109: 465–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett PG (2004). Confrontation analysis: prediction, interpretation or diagnosis?. In: Analysing Conflict and its Resolution. Proceedings of a Conference of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications. IMA, Southend-on-Sea, pp 7–17.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett P and Cropper SA (1987). Maps, games and things in-between. Eur J Opl Res 32: 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett P, Cropper S and Huxham C (1989). Modelling interactive decisions: the hypergame focus. In: Rosenhead J. (Ed). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Wiley, Chichester, pp 283–314.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett PG and Dando MR (1979). Complex strategic analysis: a hypergame study of the fall of France. J Opl Res Soc 30: 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennett PG and Howard N (1996). Rationality, emotion and preference change: drama-theoretic models of choice. Eur J Opl Res 92: 603–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennett P, Howard N and Bryant J (2001). Drama theory and confrontation analysis. In: Rosenhead J and Mingers J (Eds). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Wiley, Chichester, pp 225–248.Google Scholar
  11. Bennett P and Tait A (1993). Interact: developing software for interactive decisions. 34th Annual Convention, International Studies Association. Acapulco, Mexico.Google Scholar
  12. Bryant (1988). Frameworks of inquiry: OR practice across the hard-soft divide. J Opl Res Soc 39: 423–435.Google Scholar
  13. Bryant J (1989). Problem Management: A Guide for Producers and Players. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  14. Bryant J (1997). The plot thickens: understanding interaction through the metaphor of drama. Omega 25: 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bryant J (1998). SCRIPT: a dramatic interface for case briefings. In: Geurts J, Joldersma C and Roelofs E (Eds). Gaming/Simulation for Policy Development and Organizational Change. Tilburg University Press, Tilburg, pp 243–250.Google Scholar
  16. Bryant J (2002a). A comment on Yolles (2001): viable boundary critique. J Opl Res Soc 53: 1390–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bryant J (2002b). Confrontations in health service management: insights from drama theory. Eur J Opl Res 142: 610–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bryant J (2002c). It's all threats and promises: understanding the pressures for effective collaboration. In: Stewart M and Purdue D (Eds). Understanding Collaboration: International Perspectives on Theory, Method and Practice. University of the West of England, Bristol, pp 11–17.Google Scholar
  19. Bryant J (2003). The Six Dilemmas of Collaboration: Inter-organisational Relationships as Drama. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  20. Bryant J and Chin CK (2000). Integrating approaches to revitalise a church's mission strategy. J Opl Res Soc 51: 689–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bryant JW and Darwin J (2003). Immersive drama: testing health systems. Omega 31: 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bryant JW and Darwin J (2004). Exploring inter-organisational relationships in the health service: an immersive drama approach. Eur J Opl Res 152: 655–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bryson J, Ackermann F, Eden C and Finn CB (2004). Visible Thinking: Unlocking Causal Mapping for Practical Business Results. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  24. Buchanan D and Badham R (1999). Power, Politics and Organizational Change: Winning the Turf Game. Sage: London.Google Scholar
  25. Dixit A and Nalebuff B (1991). Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics and Everyday Life. Norton: New York.Google Scholar
  26. Eden C (1989). Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis. In: Rosenhead J. (Ed). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Wiley, Chichester, pp 21–42.Google Scholar
  27. Eden C (1990). The unfolding nature of group decision support—two dimensions of skill. In: Eden C and Radford J (Eds). Tackling Strategic Problems: The Role of Group Decision Support. Sage, London, pp 48–52.Google Scholar
  28. Eden C and Ackermann F (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. Sage: London.Google Scholar
  29. Eden C and Radford J (eds) (1990). Tackling Strategic Problems: The Role of Group Decision Support. Sage, London.Google Scholar
  30. Fisher R and Ury W (1982). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Hutchinson: London.Google Scholar
  31. Fraser N and Hipel KW (1984). Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions. North-Holland: New York.Google Scholar
  32. Green KC (2002). Forecasting decisions in conflict situations: a comparison of game theory, role-playing, and unaided judgement. Int J Forecasting 18: 321–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Howard N (1971). Paradoxes of Rationality. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  34. Howard N (1989). The manager as politician and general: the metagame approach to analysing cooperation and conflict, and The CONAN play. In: Rosenhead J. (Ed). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Wiley, Chichester, pp 239–282.Google Scholar
  35. Howard N (1993). The role of emotions in multi-organizational decision-making. J Opl Res Soc 44: 613–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Howard N (1994). Drama theory and its relation to game theory. Group Decision Negotiation 3: 187–206, 207–253.Google Scholar
  37. Howard N (1996). Negotiation as drama: how ‘games' become dramatic. Int Negotiation 1: 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Howard N (1997). Short cuts. Cooperation—or Conflict 11(5): 4.Google Scholar
  39. Howard N (1998). n-person ‘soft' games. J Opl Res Soc 49: 144–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Howard N (1999). Confrontation Analysis: How to Win Operations Other than War. CCRP, Department of Defense: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  41. Howard N (2004). Resolving Conflicts in a Tree: Drama Theory in the Extensive Form. In: Bryant JW (ed). Analysing Conflict and its Resolution. Proceedings of a Conference of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications. IMA, Southend-on-Sea, p 173.Google Scholar
  42. Howard N, Bennett PG, Bryant JW and Bradley M (1992/1993). Manifesto for a theory of drama and irrational choice. J Opl Res Soc 44: 99–103; Systems Pract 6: 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Idea Sciences (2005). Confrontation Manager User Manual. Idea Sciences: Washington.Google Scholar
  44. Mangham II (1978). Interactions and Interventions in Organizations. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  45. Mangham II and Overington MA (1987). Organizations as Theatre: A Social Psychology of Dramatic Appearances. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  46. Marinetti FT (1909). Foundation and Manifesto of Futurism. Le Figaro, 20 February 1909. Translation in Apollonio U (1973) Futurist Manifestos. Thames and Hudson: London.Google Scholar
  47. Mingers J and Rosenhead J (2001). Diverse unity: looking inward and outward. In: Rosenhead J and Mingers J (Eds). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Wiley, Chichester, pp 337–355.Google Scholar
  48. Mingers J and Rosenhead J (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Opl Res 152: 530–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mintzberg H, Ahlstrand B and Lampel J (1998). Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Strategic Management. Prentice-Hall: London.Google Scholar
  50. Morgan G (1980). Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle-solving in organization theory. Admin Sci Quart 25: 605–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Obeidi A and Hipel KW (2005). Strategic and dilemma analyses of a water export conflict. INFOR 43: 247–270.Google Scholar
  52. Rosenhead J (ed) (1989). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  53. Rosenhead J (2004). The past, present and future of problem structuring methods. J Opl Res Soc (this issue).Google Scholar
  54. Smith R, Howard N and Tait A (2001). Confrontations in war and peace. Proceedings of the Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. CCRP Publications: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  55. Sternberg P and Garcia A (1989). Sociodrama: Who's in Your Shoes?. Praeger: New York.Google Scholar
  56. Stubbs L, Howard N and Tait A (2000). How to Model a Confrontation—Computer Support for Drama Theory. Dramatec: Brighton.Google Scholar
  57. Von Neumann J and Morgenstern O (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sheffield Hallam UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations