|
" Rationality through conflict and confrontation : "
Reinhold, Andreas J.
| Document Type
|
:
|
Latin Dissertation
|
| Record Number
|
:
|
1095281
|
| Doc. No
|
:
|
TLets390314
|
| Main Entry
|
:
|
Reinhold, Andreas J.
|
| Title & Author
|
:
|
Rationality through conflict and confrontation :\ Reinhold, Andreas J.
|
| College
|
:
|
London School of Economics and Political Science (University of London)
|
| Date
|
:
|
1996
|
| student score
|
:
|
1996
|
| Degree
|
:
|
Ph.D.
|
| Abstract
|
:
|
The present thesis proposes that conflict and confrontation can, under certain conditions, leadto judgementally rational systemic action in cases where the assumptions of the traditionalrational-choice approach are not satisfied.For this purpose, the concept of rationality in economIc sCIences and in particular inOperational Research is examined. Five types of rationality emerge: conceptual, logical,procedural, instrumental and judgemental rationality. Logical rationality guides the rationalchoiceapproach. The fact that logically rational action increasingly appeared to bejudgementally irrational led to radical criticisms of the rational-choice approach in recentdecades. Such criticisms, however, tend to discard valuable intellectual investments into therational-choice approach.In an attempt to develop a less radical response, the assumptions underpinning the rationalchoiceapproach will be examined in Chapter 3. They will be referred to as the traditionalparadigm. We will within the traditional paradigm differentiate between the assumption thatseven action-relevant detenninants exist, and that system-wide values have - implicitly orexplicitly - been assigned to them. The set of detenninants comprises the systemic utilityfunction, the time discounting function, the social welfare function and model boundaries. Asecond group comprises estimates about strategic and natural uncertainty and the side effectsof decision processes.The existence assumption will remain unchallenged in the present thesis. In many real-worldsituations, however, the assignment assumption is not satisfied. In such cases, the rationalchoiceapproach is inapplicable (although it is frequently still app/ied). Chapter 4 conjecturesthat conflict and confrontation, i.e. adversary processes, can provide an alternative. Conditionsof beneficial conflict and confrontation will be derived from Habermas' theory ofcommunicative action.The hypothesis is put to an empirical test. Chapters 5 and 6 describe examples of conflict andconfrontation that occurred within British Airways. This evidence tends to support thehypothesis.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Management business studies
|
| Added Entry
|
:
|
London School of Economics and Political Science (University of London)
|
| |