Both intuition and rationality can play important roles in strategic decision making. However, a framework that specifically accounts for the interplay between intuition and rationality is still missing. This study addresses this gap by using a paradox lens and conceptualizes the intuition–rationality duality as a paradoxical tension. We draw on seven case studies of innovation projects to empirically derive a three-step process for managing this intuition–rationality tension through paradoxical thinking. Our empirical data suggest that management of the tension starts with preparing the ground for paradoxical thinking by creating managerial acceptance for the contradictory elements of rational and intuitive approaches to decision making. The process then continues by developing decision-making outcomes through the integration of intuitive and rational practices. Finally, the outcomes of paradoxical thinking are embedded into the organizational context. For each step of the model, we indicate a set of practices that, by leveraging intuitive or rational characteristics of decision making, practitioners can use to deal with this cognitive tension in the different steps of our model.

Valuation of cultural products tends to be problematic. In this paper, we provide insight into how valuation of cultural products takes place by describing the changing role and significance of different types of selection systems. Three basic types of selection systems are distinguished: market selection, peer selection, and expert selection. We show that the rise of a group of painters known as the Impressionists was facilitated by a change in the selection system of the visual arts industry from one dominated by peers into one dominated by experts. In the new selection system, innovativeness has become the most highly prized product characteristic, while a range of experts have begun to play an essential role, certifying the innovativeness of either individual artists or groups of artists.

In this article, the authors develop and empirically test a conceptual framework that predicts which types of awards have the biggest impact on the competitive performance of the award winners. The empirical setting is an industry where awards proliferate, namely, the U.S. motion picture industry. Overall, their results suggest that awards granted by a jury composed primarily of end consumers, peers, or experts each have a different effect on consumer behavior, which can be explained in terms of differences in source credibility and award salience.

RS-frames were introduced by Gehrke as relational semantics for substructural logics. They are two-sorted structures, based on RS-polarities with additional relations used to interpret modalities. We propose an intuitive, epistemic interpretation of RS-frames for modal logic, in terms of categorization systems and agents' subjective interpretations of these systems. Categorization systems are a key to any decision-making process and are widely studied in the social and management sciences. A set of objects together with a set of properties and an incidence relation connecting objects with their properties forms a polarity which can be 'pruned' into an RS-polarity. Potential categories emerge as the Galois-stable sets of this polarity, just like the concepts of Formal Concept Analysis. An agent's beliefs about objects and their properties (which might be partial) is modelled by a relation which gives rise to a normal modal operator expressing the agent's beliefs about category membership. Fixed-points of the iterations of the belief modalities of all agents are used to model categories constructed through social interaction.