<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.4 20241031//EN"
        "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.4/JATS-journalpublishing1-4.dtd">
<article  article-type="research-article"        dtd-version="1.4">
            <front>

                <journal-meta>
                                    <journal-id></journal-id>
            <journal-title-group>
                                                                                    <journal-title>Beykoz Akademi Dergisi</journal-title>
            </journal-title-group>
                                        <issn pub-type="epub">2651-5393</issn>
                                                                                            <publisher>
                    <publisher-name>Beykoz Üniversitesi</publisher-name>
                </publisher>
                    </journal-meta>
                <article-meta>
                                        <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.14514/BYK.m.26515393.2021.9/1.150-164</article-id>
                                                                                                                                                                                            <title-group>
                                                                                                                        <article-title>STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT</article-title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <trans-title-group xml:lang="en">
                                    <trans-title>ERISTIC ARGUMENTATION IN STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING: A THREAT TO THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HEURISTICS</trans-title>
                                </trans-title-group>
                                                                                                    </title-group>
            
                                                    <contrib-group content-type="authors">
                                                                        <contrib contrib-type="author">
                                                                    <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">
                                        https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4930-1261</contrib-id>
                                                                <name>
                                    <surname>Kurdoğlu</surname>
                                    <given-names>Rasim Serdar</given-names>
                                </name>
                                                                    <aff>BİLKENT ÜNİVERSİTESİ</aff>
                                                            </contrib>
                                                    <contrib contrib-type="author">
                                                                    <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">
                                        https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4572-4101</contrib-id>
                                                                <name>
                                    <surname>Ateş</surname>
                                    <given-names>Nüfer Yasin</given-names>
                                </name>
                                                                    <aff>SABANCI ÜNİVERSİTESİ</aff>
                                                            </contrib>
                                                                                </contrib-group>
                        
                                        <pub-date pub-type="pub" iso-8601-date="20210601">
                    <day>06</day>
                    <month>01</month>
                    <year>2021</year>
                </pub-date>
                                        <volume>9</volume>
                                        <issue>1</issue>
                                        <fpage>150</fpage>
                                        <lpage>164</lpage>
                        
                        <history>
                                    <date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="20201008">
                        <day>10</day>
                        <month>08</month>
                        <year>2020</year>
                    </date>
                                                    <date date-type="accepted" iso-8601-date="20210529">
                        <day>05</day>
                        <month>29</month>
                        <year>2021</year>
                    </date>
                            </history>
                                        <permissions>
                    <copyright-statement>Copyright © 2013, Beykoz Akademi Dergisi</copyright-statement>
                    <copyright-year>2013</copyright-year>
                    <copyright-holder>Beykoz Akademi Dergisi</copyright-holder>
                </permissions>
            
                                                                                                <abstract><p>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.</p></abstract>
                                                                                                                                    <trans-abstract xml:lang="en">
                            <p>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.</p></trans-abstract>
                                                            
            
                                                            <kwd-group>
                                                    <kwd>Stratejik karar verme</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Sezgisel gerekçelendirme</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Eristik gerekçelendirme</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Teori geliştirme</kwd>
                                            </kwd-group>
                                                        
                                                                            <kwd-group xml:lang="en">
                                                    <kwd>Strategic decision making</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Heuristic argumentation</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Eristic argumentation</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Theory development</kwd>
                                            </kwd-group>
                                                                                                            </article-meta>
    </front>
    <back>
                            <ref-list>
                                    <ref id="ref1">
                        <label>1</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J Greenberg &amp; J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 85–112). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref2">
                        <label>2</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Bingham, C. B., &amp; Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rational heuristics: The “simple rules” that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1437–1464.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref3">
                        <label>3</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Bobocel, D. R., &amp; Zdaniuk, A. (2005). How can explanations be used to foster organizational justice? In Jerald Greenberg &amp; J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 469–498). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref4">
                        <label>4</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Booth, W. C. (2004). The rhetoric of rhetoric : The quest for effective communication. Blackwell Publishing.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref5">
                        <label>5</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">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.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref6">
                        <label>6</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Brass, D. J., &amp; Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441-470.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref7">
                        <label>7</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Collins, B. J., &amp; 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.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref8">
                        <label>8</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Coughlan, R. (2005). Codes, values and justifications in the ethical decision-making process. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1–2), 45–53.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref9">
                        <label>9</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Cullen, L. K., Gerbasi, A., &amp; Chrobot-Mason, D. (2018). Thriving in central network positions: The role of political skill. Journal of Management, 44(2), 682–706.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref10">
                        <label>10</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Dane, E., &amp; Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. The Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33–54.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref11">
                        <label>11</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">den Nieuwenboer, N. A., Cunha, J. V. D., &amp; Treviño, L. K. (2017). Middle managers and corruptive routine translation: The social production of deceptive performance. Organization Science, 28(5), 781–803.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref12">
                        <label>12</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Eisenhardt, K. M., &amp; 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.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref13">
                        <label>13</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Elbanna, S. (2006). Strategic decision-making: Process perspectives. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 1–20.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref14">
                        <label>14</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Felin, T., Foss, N. J., &amp; Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The Microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575–632.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref15">
                        <label>15</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., &amp; 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.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref16">
                        <label>16</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 505-538.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref17">
                        <label>17</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Foss, N. J., &amp; 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.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref18">
                        <label>18</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Foss, N. J., &amp; Pedersen, T. (2016). Microfoundations in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13), E22–E34.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref19">
                        <label>19</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 20–29.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref20">
                        <label>20</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Gigerenzer, G., &amp; Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 451–482.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref21">
                        <label>21</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Goldstein, D. G., &amp; Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109(1), 75–90.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref22">
                        <label>22</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Gotsis, G. N., &amp; Kortezi, Z. (2010). Ethical considerations in organizational politics: Expanding the perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(4), 497–517.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref23">
                        <label>23</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., &amp; Shaw, J. D. (2007). The impact of political skill on impression management effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 278–285.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref24">
                        <label>24</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Hayek, F. A. (1973). Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. 1, Rules and Order. University of Chicago Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref25">
                        <label>25</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Hiekkataipale, M.-M., &amp; 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.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref26">
                        <label>26</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">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.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref27">
                        <label>27</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">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.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref28">
                        <label>28</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Kurdoglu, R. S., &amp; 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.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref29">
                        <label>29</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Luan, S., Reb, J., &amp; Gigerenzer, G. (2019). Ecological rationality: Fast-and-frugal heuristics for managerial decision making under uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 1–75.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref30">
                        <label>30</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Mael, F., &amp; 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.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref31">
                        <label>31</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Maitland, E., &amp; 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.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref32">
                        <label>32</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">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.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref33">
                        <label>33</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Mercier, H., &amp; Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74. www.dan.sperber.fr</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref34">
                        <label>34</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Perelman, C. (1963). The Idea of Justice and The Problem of Argument. Routledge &amp; Kegan Paul.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref35">
                        <label>35</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Perelman, C. (1979). The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications. D. Reidel Publishing Company.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref36">
                        <label>36</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Perelman, C. (1982). The Realm of Rhetoric. University of Notre Dame Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref37">
                        <label>37</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Perelman, C. (1984a). On legal systems. J. Social Biol Strut, 7, 301–306.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref38">
                        <label>38</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Perelman, C. (1984b). Rhetoric and politics. Philosophy &amp; Rhetoric, 17(3), 129–134.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref39">
                        <label>39</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Perelman, C., &amp; Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric : A Treatise on Argumentation (E-book ver). University of Notre Dame Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref40">
                        <label>40</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Popper, K. R. (1972). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Vol. 4th). Routledge and Kegan Paul.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref41">
                        <label>41</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Renn, R. W., Steinbauer, R., &amp; Biggane, J. (2018). Reconceptualizing self-defeating work behavior for management research. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 131–143.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref42">
                        <label>42</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Rupp, D. E., Shapiro, D. L., Folger, R., Skarlicki, D. P., &amp; 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.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref43">
                        <label>43</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Shepherd, D. A., Mcmullen, J. S., &amp; 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</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref44">
                        <label>44</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Smith, V. L. (2003). Constructivist and ecological rationality in economics. American Economic Review, 93(3), 465–508. 
https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322156954</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref45">
                        <label>45</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Todd, S. Y., Harris, K. J., Harris, R. B., &amp; 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.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref46">
                        <label>46</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Tversky, A., &amp; Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref47">
                        <label>47</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375–400.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref48">
                        <label>48</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., &amp; Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref49">
                        <label>49</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">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., &amp;</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref50">
                        <label>50</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory : A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref51">
                        <label>51</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Van Eemeren, F. H., &amp; Henkemans, A. F. S. (2017). Argumentation: Analysis and Evaluation. Routledge.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref52">
                        <label>52</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">van Laar, J. A. (2010). Argumentative bluff in eristic discussion: An analysis and evaluation. Argumentation, 24(3), 383–398.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref53">
                        <label>53</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Walker, B., &amp; Hamilton, R. T. (2011). Employee-employer grievances: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 40–58.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref54">
                        <label>54</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Walton, D. N. (1998). The New Dialectic : Conversational Contexts of Argument. University of Toronto Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref55">
                        <label>55</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Walton, D. N. (1999). One-Sided Arguments : A Dialectical Analysis of Bias. State University of New York Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref56">
                        <label>56</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Wolf, S. (2010). A System of argumentation forms in Aristotle. Argumentation, 24(1), 19–40.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                            </ref-list>
                    </back>
    </article>
