Search

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., 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.

PurposeThis paper aims to introduce eristic decision-making in entrepreneurship. A decision is eristically made when it utilizes eristics, which are action-triggering short-cuts that draw on hedonic urges (e.g. sensation-seeking). Unlike heuristics, eristic decision-making is not intendedly rational as eristics lead to decision-making without calculating or even considering the consequences of actions. Eristics are adaptive when uncertainty is extreme. Completely novel strategies, nascent venturing, corporate venturing for radical innovation and adapting to shocks (e.g. pandemic) are typically subject to extreme uncertainties.Design/methodology/approachIn light of the relevant debates in entrepreneurship, psychology and decision sciences, the paper builds new conceptual links to establish its theoretical claims through secondary research.FindingsThe paper posits that people adapt to extreme uncertainty by using eristic reasoning rather than heuristic reasoning. Heuristic reasoning allows boundedly rational decision-makers to use qualitative cues to estimate the consequences of actions and to make reasoned decisions. By contrast, eristic reasoning ignores realistic calculations and considerations about the future consequences of actions and produces decisions guided by hedonic urges.Originality/valueCurrent entrepreneurial research on uncertainty usually focuses on moderate levels of uncertainty where heuristics and other intendedly rational decision-making approaches pay off. By contrast, this paper focuses on extreme uncertainty where eristics are adaptive. While not intendedly rational, the adaptiveness of eristic reasoning offers theoretically and psychologically grounded new explanations about action under extreme uncertainty.

Cataloged from PDF version of article. Thesis (M.S.): Bilkent University, Department of Management, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, 2020. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 48-55). It is widely known that an increase in the perceived quality of a brand significantly increases one’s intention to purchase that brand. According to the signaling theory, the foreignness of a brand may act as a sign of quality. In developing countries, foreign brands originating from developed countries are identified with wealth, prestige, allure, and superiority; these features lead consumers to consider them higher quality. However, for ethnocentric consumers, as the social identity theory suggests, a higher perceived foreignness of a brand may become an out-group sign that decreases one’s perception of brand quality, and which eventually decreases purchase intentions. Despite these expectations, there is no obvious pattern demonstrating a relationship between perception of brand foreignness, brand quality, and the purchase intentions of ethnocentric consumers. To explore a relevant pattern, I focus on the purchase intentions of ethnocentric consumers for products that are categorized as national icons. As ethnocentric consumption hints at an emotional attachment to one’s own culture, I investigate the effect of emotions on ethnocentric consumption through observing changes in the purchase intentions for national icons. Drawing on the appraisal tendency framework, I hypothesize that incidental emotions (i.e., mood) moderate the relationships among perceived brand foreignness, perceived brand quality, and purchase intentions in such a manner that each emotion has a distinct effect on judgments and decisions surrounding quality and purchase. ANOVA and OLS regression analyses illustrate that the national icon status of a product on its own does not have a statistically significant effect on the purchase decisions of ethnocentric consumers. By contrast, when the incidental emotion of anger is present, the purchase intention for national icon products with foreign brand names decreases significantly; incidental anger triggers a shallow heuristic decision which amplifies stereotypical reasoning. by Alım Yılmaz M.B.A

By synthesizing the argumentation theory of new rhetoric with research on heuristics and motivated reasoning, we develop a conceptual view of argumentation based on reasoning motivations that sheds new light on the morality of decision-making. Accordingly, we propose that reasoning in eristic argumentation is motivated by psychological (e.g., anxiety reduction) or material (e.g., vested interests) gains that do not depend on resolving the problem in question truthfully. Contrary to heuristic argumentation, in which disputants genuinely argue to reach a practically rational solution, eristic argumentation aims to defeat the counterparty rather than seeking a reasonable solution. Eristic argumentation is susceptible to arbitrariness and power abuses; therefore, it is inappropriate for making moral judgments with the exception of judgments concerning moral taboos, which are closed to argumentation by their nature. Eristic argumentation is also problematic for strategic and entrepreneurial decision-making because it impedes the search for the right heuristic under uncertainty as an ecologically rational choice. However, our theoretical view emphasizes that under extreme uncertainty, where heuristic solutions are as fallible as any guesses, pretense reasoning by eristic argumentation may be instrumental for its adaptive benefits. Expanding the concept of eristic argumentation based on reasoning motivations opens a new path for studying the psychology of reasoning in connection to morality and decision-making under uncertainty. We discuss the implications of our theoretical view to relevant research streams, including ethical, strategic and entrepreneurial decision-making.