The Structure of Legitimization: Establishing Organizational Legitimacy While Applying Decision Making Rules

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Galit Klein
2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 124-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralf Barkemeyer ◽  
Frank Figge

Purpose – This paper aims to argue that the on-going professionalization and dissemination of the current wave of corporate social responsibility (CSR) concepts and instruments leads to a headquartering effect, i.e. the concentration of CSR-related decision-making within corporate headquarters. This headquartering effect casts doubt on earlier studies suggesting that the “transnational” or “glocal” model can effectively address the multitude of global and local CSR challenges modern multinational companies (MNCs) face. Design/methodology/approach – This conceptual paper uses a stakeholder lens, in turn, drawing from resource dependence theory and organizational legitimacy theory to develop under which conditions claims of Southern stakeholders will be considered by Northern MNCs. It provides evidence for the existence of a headquartering effect as a defining characteristic of mainstream CSR approaches. Findings – The authors argue that the increasing professionalization and dissemination of mainstream CSR approaches among MNCs reinforce the headquartering effect, with strategic decision-making increasingly confined to the companies’ headquarters, while the scope of action within the subsidiaries and the supply chain of MNCs becomes increasingly restricted over time. Ultimately, this headquartering effect strengthens a Northern CSR/sustainability agenda and fails to empower developing country stakeholders. Originality/value – The paper contributes by exploring how international CSR follows a different underlying rationale than international business. While international business research follows an instrumental perspective, international CSR is driven by both instrumental and normative considerations. Thus, international business theories may not be directly applicable to international CSR contexts.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.


2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie F. Reyna ◽  
David A. Broniatowski

Abstract Gilead et al. offer a thoughtful and much-needed treatment of abstraction. However, it fails to build on an extensive literature on abstraction, representational diversity, neurocognition, and psychopathology that provides important constraints and alternative evidence-based conceptions. We draw on conceptions in software engineering, socio-technical systems engineering, and a neurocognitive theory with abstract representations of gist at its core, fuzzy-trace theory.


2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Convery ◽  
Gitte Keidser ◽  
Louise Hickson ◽  
Carly Meyer

Purpose Hearing loss self-management refers to the knowledge and skills people use to manage the effects of hearing loss on all aspects of their daily lives. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-reported hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Method Thirty-seven adults with hearing loss, all of whom were current users of bilateral hearing aids, participated in this observational study. The participants completed self-report inventories probing their hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationship between individual domains of hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Results Participants who reported better self-management of the effects of their hearing loss on their emotional well-being and social participation were more likely to report less aided listening difficulty in noisy and reverberant environments and greater satisfaction with the effect of their hearing aids on their self-image. Participants who reported better self-management in the areas of adhering to treatment, participating in shared decision making, accessing services and resources, attending appointments, and monitoring for changes in their hearing and functional status were more likely to report greater satisfaction with the sound quality and performance of their hearing aids. Conclusion Study findings highlight the potential for using information about a patient's hearing loss self-management in different domains as part of clinical decision making and management planning.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document