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.

A Model of Rhetorical Legitimation: The Structure of Communication and Cognition Underlying Institutional Maintenance and Change

“…Second, future research might also examine how proponents and opponents in a legitimation contest use rhetorical structure differently when deploying strategies to legitimate or delegitimate certain actions or ideas. While past work suggests that proponents and opponents often cluster around different types of rhetorical strategies (e.g., Bouwmeester, 2013;Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005), we know less about why different social actors select specific strategies. Our framework suggests that proponents or defenders of the current institution would tend to deploy more intrafield rhetoric in order to maintain the status quo by restricting the use of certain rebuttals and correspondingly increasing the risks of their use.…”

“…Backing field or backing to be synonymous with the collective definition of an institutional context (Bouwmeester, 2013;Goodnight, 2006;Simosi, 2003;v. Werder, 1999).…”

Örgütlerdeki sözel etkileşimlerin analizi için argümantasyon teorisinin kullanımı

“…Many studies have embraced argumentation analysis (e.g., Alvesson, 1993;Bouwmeester, 2013;Brown et al, 2012;Erkama and Vaara, 2010;Sillince and Brown, 2009;Suddaby and Greenwood, 2005;Symon et al, 2008). Yet, in contrast to methods like grounded theory and content analysis, argumentation analysis methods have been vastly underutilised (Bluhm, Harman, Lee, & Mitchell, 2011).…”

Aesthetic Rationality in Organizations: Toward Developing a Sensitivity for Sustainability

“…It involves communication of the experience based on reasoning—where reason is interpreted broadly. In a sustainability context, each person’s reasoning becomes value rational, where “moral considerations about justice or environmental care” are discussed (Bouwmeester, 2013, p. 415). Inclinations surrounding justice fit into the social bonds category of moral foundations (Haidt, 2013).…”

“…Successful sustainable innovation in business depends on how organizations rationalize and provide intellectual spaces for it to happen (Freeman & Harris, 2009; Nidumolu, Prahalad, & Rangaswami, 2009). Strategic decisions need to be “based on a rationality that convinces stakeholders” (Bouwmeester, 2013, p. 429). We respond to a call in this journal to find “new ways of knowing” in organizational research (Mirvis, 2014).…”