Field Dependency of Argumentation Rationality in Decision-Making Debates

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

This study argues that the rationality behind strategic decisions, which is characterized as expressive, social, or instrumental rational, has to be aligned with the argumentation field of the decision, which is characterized as subjective, intersubjective, or objective. A multiple case study illustrates this proposition while exploring rationality in the mainly instrumental rational debate on the expansion of Heathrow, the social rational debate on extension of Gurkha rights and the expressive rational debate on the hijab in Britain. Stakeholder arguments that realize good alignment with the related argumentation field have a substantial influence on strategic decisions. Managers and policy makers who do not realize this field fit well have to adapt their decisions, or cannot execute them. The cases illustrate the effects of this alignment strategy, in argumentation that mirrors the rationality of opponents, and in a strategy that reframes the assumed fit between the rationality and the related argumentation field. © The Author(s) 2013.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)415-433
JournalJournal of Management Inquiry
Volume22
Issue number4
Early online date9 Jan 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Decision making
Managers
Argumentation
Rationality
Alignment
Strategic decisions

Cite this

@article{f522ef1253a447c2ad2091883da8f98b,
title = "Field Dependency of Argumentation Rationality in Decision-Making Debates",
abstract = "This study argues that the rationality behind strategic decisions, which is characterized as expressive, social, or instrumental rational, has to be aligned with the argumentation field of the decision, which is characterized as subjective, intersubjective, or objective. A multiple case study illustrates this proposition while exploring rationality in the mainly instrumental rational debate on the expansion of Heathrow, the social rational debate on extension of Gurkha rights and the expressive rational debate on the hijab in Britain. Stakeholder arguments that realize good alignment with the related argumentation field have a substantial influence on strategic decisions. Managers and policy makers who do not realize this field fit well have to adapt their decisions, or cannot execute them. The cases illustrate the effects of this alignment strategy, in argumentation that mirrors the rationality of opponents, and in a strategy that reframes the assumed fit between the rationality and the related argumentation field. {\circledC} The Author(s) 2013.",
author = "O. Bouwmeester",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1177/1056492612469727",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "415--433",
journal = "Journal of Management Inquiry",
issn = "1056-4926",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "4",

}

Field Dependency of Argumentation Rationality in Decision-Making Debates. / Bouwmeester, O.

In: Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2013, p. 415-433.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Field Dependency of Argumentation Rationality in Decision-Making Debates

AU - Bouwmeester, O.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - This study argues that the rationality behind strategic decisions, which is characterized as expressive, social, or instrumental rational, has to be aligned with the argumentation field of the decision, which is characterized as subjective, intersubjective, or objective. A multiple case study illustrates this proposition while exploring rationality in the mainly instrumental rational debate on the expansion of Heathrow, the social rational debate on extension of Gurkha rights and the expressive rational debate on the hijab in Britain. Stakeholder arguments that realize good alignment with the related argumentation field have a substantial influence on strategic decisions. Managers and policy makers who do not realize this field fit well have to adapt their decisions, or cannot execute them. The cases illustrate the effects of this alignment strategy, in argumentation that mirrors the rationality of opponents, and in a strategy that reframes the assumed fit between the rationality and the related argumentation field. © The Author(s) 2013.

AB - This study argues that the rationality behind strategic decisions, which is characterized as expressive, social, or instrumental rational, has to be aligned with the argumentation field of the decision, which is characterized as subjective, intersubjective, or objective. A multiple case study illustrates this proposition while exploring rationality in the mainly instrumental rational debate on the expansion of Heathrow, the social rational debate on extension of Gurkha rights and the expressive rational debate on the hijab in Britain. Stakeholder arguments that realize good alignment with the related argumentation field have a substantial influence on strategic decisions. Managers and policy makers who do not realize this field fit well have to adapt their decisions, or cannot execute them. The cases illustrate the effects of this alignment strategy, in argumentation that mirrors the rationality of opponents, and in a strategy that reframes the assumed fit between the rationality and the related argumentation field. © The Author(s) 2013.

U2 - 10.1177/1056492612469727

DO - 10.1177/1056492612469727

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 415

EP - 433

JO - Journal of Management Inquiry

JF - Journal of Management Inquiry

SN - 1056-4926

IS - 4

ER -