STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT

Stratejik kararlar çoğunlukla yüksek belirsizlik içeren koşullarda, kurum içinde farklı birimleri temsil eden, dolayısıyla farklı bireysel çıkarları olan ve farklı stratejik gündemlere sahip koalisyonlar tarafından alınır. Bu koşullarda, pratik akıl yürütme içeren sezgisel yöntemlerin etkin olarak kullanılması kaliteli stratejik kararların oluşturulması için gereklidir. Bu araştırma, stratejik karar vermede sezgisel yöntemlerin etkin kullanılmasına tehdit oluşturan eristik gerekçelendirme kavramını sunan teorik bir çalışmadır. Eristik gerekçelendirme, muhakeme süreçlerini istismar ederek, karşı tarafı ne pahasına olursa olsun alt etmeyi amaçlar. Bu çalışma eristik gerekçelendirmenin temelini, işaretçilerini ve kurumlar açısından sonuçlarını tartışarak strateji literatürünün mikro temellerine katkıda bulunmaktadır.

ERISTIC ARGUMENTATION IN STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING: A THREAT TO THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HEURISTICS

Strategic decisions are often made in highly uncertain conditions by a coalition of actors which are driven by their self or subunit interests, thus have conflicting strategic agendas. In these conditions, the use of heuristic decision making that exerts practical rationality is required to arrive at high quality strategic decisions. This research introduces ‘eristic argumentation’ as a major threat to the effective using of heuristics in strategic decision making. Eristic argumentation abuses reasoning to defeat the counter party at all costs. This study contributes to the micro-foundations of strategy literature by discussing the bases of eristic argumentation, its markers and its consequences for organizations.

Kaynakça

Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 85–112). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rational heuristics: The “simple rules” that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1437–1464.

Bobocel, D. R., & Zdaniuk, A. (2005). How can explanations be used to foster organizational justice? In Jerald Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 469–498). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Booth, W. C. (2004). The rhetoric of rhetoric : The quest for effective communication. Blackwell Publishing.

Bozionelos, N. (2005). When the inferior candidate is offered the job : The selection interview as a political and power game. Human Relations, 58(12), 1605–1631.

Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441-470.

Collins, B. J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2017). Fairness means more to some than others: Interactional fairness, job embeddedness, and discretionary work behaviors. Journal of Management, 43(2), 293–318.

Coughlan, R. (2005). Codes, values and justifications in the ethical decision-making process. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1–2), 45–53.

Cullen, L. K., Gerbasi, A., & Chrobot-Mason, D. (2018). Thriving in central network positions: The role of political skill. Journal of Management, 44(2), 682–706.

Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. The Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33–54.

den Nieuwenboer, N. A., Cunha, J. V. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2017). Middle managers and corruptive routine translation: The social production of deceptive performance. Organization Science, 28(5), 781–803.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 737–770.

Elbanna, S. (2006). Strategic decision-making: Process perspectives. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 1–20.

Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The Microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575–632.

Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: the effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity-and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 893–908.

Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 505-538.

Foss, N. J., & Lindenberg, S. M. (2013). Microfoundations for strategy: A goal-framing perspective on the drivers of value creation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 85–102.

Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2016). Microfoundations in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13), E22–E34.

Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 20–29.

Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 451–482.

Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109(1), 75–90.

Gotsis, G. N., & Kortezi, Z. (2010). Ethical considerations in organizational politics: Expanding the perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(4), 497–517.

Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Shaw, J. D. (2007). The impact of political skill on impression management effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 278–285.

Hayek, F. A. (1973). Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. 1, Rules and Order. University of Chicago Press.

Hiekkataipale, M.-M., & Lämsä, A. M. (2017). What should a manager like me do in a situation like this? Strategies for handling ethical problems from the viewpoint of the logic of appropriateness. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(3), 457–479.

Koriat, A. (2018). When reality is out of focus: Can people tell whether their beliefs and judgments are correct or wrong? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(5), 613–631.

Kurdoglu, R. S. (2019). An inquiry into pseudo-legitimations: A framework to investigate the clash of managerial legitimations and employees’ unfairness claims. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(1), 129–138.

Kurdoglu, R. S., & Ateş, N. Y. (2020). Arguing to defeat: Eristic argumentation and irrationality in resolving moral concerns. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04659-2.

Luan, S., Reb, J., & Gigerenzer, G. (2019). Ecological rationality: Fast-and-frugal heuristics for managerial decision making under uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 1–75.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202.

Maitland, E., & Sammartino, A. (2015). Decision making and uncertainty: The role of heuristics and experience in assessing a politically hazardous environment. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1554–1578.

Margolis, J. (1995). Philosophy in the “new” rhetoric, rhetoric in the “new” philosophy. In S. Mailloux (Ed.), Rhetoric, Sophistry, Pragmatism (pp. 109–138). Cambridge University Press.

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74. www.dan.sperber.fr

Perelman, C. (1963). The Idea of Justice and The Problem of Argument. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Perelman, C. (1979). The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications. D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Perelman, C. (1982). The Realm of Rhetoric. University of Notre Dame Press.

Perelman, C. (1984a). On legal systems. J. Social Biol Strut, 7, 301–306.

Perelman, C. (1984b). Rhetoric and politics. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 17(3), 129–134.

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric : A Treatise on Argumentation (E-book ver). University of Notre Dame Press.

Popper, K. R. (1972). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Vol. 4th). Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Renn, R. W., Steinbauer, R., & Biggane, J. (2018). Reconceptualizing self-defeating work behavior for management research. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 131–143.

Rupp, D. E., Shapiro, D. L., Folger, R., Skarlicki, D. P., & Shao, R. (2017). A critical analysis of the conceptualization and measurement of organizational Justice : Is it time for reassessment ? Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 919–959.

Shepherd, D. A., Mcmullen, J. S., & Ocasio, W. (2017). Is that an opportunity? An attention model of top managers’ opportunity beliefs for strategic action. Strategic Management Journal, 38(3), 626–644. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2499

Smith, V. L. (2003). Constructivist and ecological rationality in economics. American Economic Review, 93(3), 465–508. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322156954

Todd, S. Y., Harris, K. J., Harris, R. B., & Wheeler, A. R. (2009). Career success implications of political skill. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(3), 279–304. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument (Updated). Oxford University Press.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375–400.

Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer.

Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., &

Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory : A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Van Eemeren, F. H., & Henkemans, A. F. S. (2017). Argumentation: Analysis and Evaluation. Routledge.

van Laar, J. A. (2010). Argumentative bluff in eristic discussion: An analysis and evaluation. Argumentation, 24(3), 383–398.

Walker, B., & Hamilton, R. T. (2011). Employee-employer grievances: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 40–58.

Walton, D. N. (1998). The New Dialectic : Conversational Contexts of Argument. University of Toronto Press.

Walton, D. N. (1999). One-Sided Arguments : A Dialectical Analysis of Bias. State University of New York Press.

Wolf, S. (2010). A System of argumentation forms in Aristotle. Argumentation, 24(1), 19–40.

Kaynak Göster

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { beykozad963038, journal = {Beykoz Akademi Dergisi}, issn = {}, eissn = {2651-5393}, address = {Beykoz Üniversitesi Vatan Cad. No: 69 Kavacık-Beykoz / İstanbul 34805}, publisher = {Beykoz Üniversitesi}, year = {2021}, volume = {9}, pages = {150 - 164}, doi = {10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164}, title = {STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT}, key = {cite}, author = {Kurdoğlu, Rasim Serdar and Ateş, Nüfer Yasin} }
APA Kurdoğlu, R , Ateş, N . (2021). STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT . Beykoz Akademi Dergisi , 9 (1) , 150-164 . DOI: 10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164
MLA Kurdoğlu, R , Ateş, N . "STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT" . Beykoz Akademi Dergisi 9 (2021 ): 150-164 <
Chicago Kurdoğlu, R , Ateş, N . "STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT". Beykoz Akademi Dergisi 9 (2021 ): 150-164
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT AU - Rasim Serdar Kurdoğlu , Nüfer Yasin Ateş Y1 - 2021 PY - 2021 N1 - doi: 10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164 DO - 10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164 T2 - Beykoz Akademi Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 150 EP - 164 VL - 9 IS - 1 SN - -2651-5393 M3 - doi: 10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164 UR - Y2 - 2021 ER -
EndNote %0 Beykoz Akademi Dergisi STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT %A Rasim Serdar Kurdoğlu , Nüfer Yasin Ateş %T STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT %D 2021 %J Beykoz Akademi Dergisi %P -2651-5393 %V 9 %N 1 %R doi: 10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164 %U 10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164
ISNAD Kurdoğlu, Rasim Serdar , Ateş, Nüfer Yasin . "STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT". Beykoz Akademi Dergisi 9 / 1 (Haziran 2021): 150-164 .
AMA Kurdoğlu R , Ateş N . STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi. 2021; 9(1): 150-164.
Vancouver Kurdoğlu R , Ateş N . STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi. 2021; 9(1): 150-164.
IEEE R. Kurdoğlu ve N. Ateş , "STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT", Beykoz Akademi Dergisi, c. 9, sayı. 1, ss. 150-164, Haz. 2021, doi:10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
  • Yayıncı: Beykoz Üniversitesi

5.4b 3.2b

Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

TÜKETİCİ REZONANSININ SOSYAL MEDYA SİTELERİNDEN SATIN ALMA NİYETİNE ETKİSİ

Serhat KARAOĞLAN, Nur ÇAĞLAR ÇETİNKAYA, Tülin DURUKAN

AĞ TOPLUMU YAKLAŞIMI İLE AKADEMİK BİR SOSYAL AĞ MODELİ İÇİN GRAF VERİ TABANI ÖNERİSİ

Alper DEĞERLİ

ATATÜRK’ÜN YÖNETİM ORGANİZASYON ALANINA BİR KATKISI: SEVGİ- SAYGI, GÜVEN – OTORİTEYE İTAAT, İŞ DİSİPLİNİ VE HUZURUN KARİYER BAŞARISINA ETKİSİ

Elif BİLGİNOĞLU, Uğur YOZGAT, İnci ERDEM ARTAN

AFET BAKIŞ AÇISIYLA LOJİSTİK DEPO YERİ SEÇİMİ: İSTANBUL BEYKOZ İLÇESİ ÜZERİNE BİR UYGULAMA

Celil DURDAĞ, Sabri ERGENECOŞAR, Zeynel KINIK, Kurthan Kubilay YILMAZ

HERMENEUTİK OKUMALAR II: EMPEDOKLES’DE SEVGİ VE NEFRET KAVRAMLARININ STANDART MODEL VE HİGGS BOZONU EKSENİNDE OKUNMASI

Recep KÜLCÜ

BARIŞ PINARI HAREKÂTININ GÜNDEM BELİRLEME TEORİSİ AÇISINDAN MEDYADA YER ALMA DURUMUNUN İNCELENMESİ

Münür İPEK, Ahmet KANILMAZ

STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT

Rasim Serdar KURDOĞLU, Nüfer Yasin ATEŞ

HAVACILIKTA NİTELİKLİ İNSAN KAYNAĞI YETİŞTİRME SORUNUNUN ÜNİVERSİTELERDEKİ SİVİL HAVA ULAŞTIRMA İŞLETMECİLİĞİ VE HAVACILIK YÖNETİMİ BÖLÜMLERİNDE GÖREV ALAN AKADEMİK KADROLARIN NİTELİĞİ-NİCELİĞİ BAĞLAMINDA DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Sibel BİLKAY

YÜKSEK ÖĞRENİM KURUMLARININ SOSYAL ETKİLERİNİN ÖLÇÜMÜ ÜZERİNE KARŞILAŞTIRMALI BİR ANALİZ

Pınar Gökçin ÖZUYAR, Esra BAYHANTOPÇU

KÜLTÜRÜN SOSYAL MEDYA KULLANIM MOTİVASYONU ÜZERİNDEKI ETKİSİ: TÜRK VE ALMAN LİSE ÖĞRENCİLERİ İÇİN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI BİR ÇALIŞMA

Selçuk KIRAN, Fatma Göksu DEMİRÇEVİREN