Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

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

Year 2021, , 150 - 164, 01.06.2021

Rasim Serdar Kurdoğlu Nüfer Yasin Ateş

https://doi.org/10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Stratejik karar verme Sezgisel gerekçelendirme Eristik gerekçelendirme Teori geliştirme

References

  • 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.

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

Year 2021, , 150 - 164, 01.06.2021

Rasim Serdar Kurdoğlu Nüfer Yasin Ateş

https://doi.org/10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Strategic decision making Heuristic argumentation Eristic argumentation Theory development

References

  • 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.
There are 56 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Rasim Serdar Kurdoğlu This is me 0000-0003-4930-1261

Nüfer Yasin Ateş This is me 0000-0003-4572-4101

Publication Date June 1, 2021
Submission Date October 8, 2020
Acceptance Date May 29, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021

Cite

APA Kurdoğlu, R. S., & Ateş, N. Y. (2021). STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi, 9(1), 150-164. https://doi.org/10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164
AMA Kurdoğlu RS, Ateş NY. STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi. June 2021;9(1):150-164. doi:10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164
Chicago Kurdoğlu, Rasim Serdar, and Nüfer Yasin Ateş. “STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT”. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi 9, no. 1 (June 2021): 150-64. https://doi.org/10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164.
EndNote Kurdoğlu RS, Ateş NY (June 1, 2021) STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi 9 1 150–164.
IEEE R. S. Kurdoğlu and N. Y. Ateş, “STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT”, Beykoz Akademi Dergisi, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 150–164, 2021, doi: 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 (June 2021), 150-164. https://doi.org/10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164.
JAMA Kurdoğlu RS, Ateş NY. STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi. 2021;9:150–164.
MLA Kurdoğlu, Rasim Serdar and Nüfer Yasin Ateş. “STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT”. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi, vol. 9, no. 1, 2021, pp. 150-64, doi:10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164.
Vancouver Kurdoğlu RS, Ateş NY. STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi. 2021;9(1):150-64.