Argumentation rationality of management decisions

This article is concerned with the assessment of the substantiation of management decisions in practice. The necessity for this undertaking derives from the fact that to be successful, management must choose the right extent of analysis for preparing major decisions. Testing this hypothesis requires the ability to measure the thoroughness of a decision preparation and to relate different levels of thoroughness to the success of the decision outcomes. In this paper, the author first presents the conceptual framework of argumentation rationality which makes it possible to measure the thoroughness of a decision preparation-or in other words, the soundness of reasons given for the decision. For a concrete-trial usage, the concept is then combined with the methodology of account analysis introduced by Lewin (Lewin 1996, Lewin and Hunter 1996, Hunter 1999) for the research project on "New Organization Forms in the Information Age" (NOFIA). The arguments given explicitly in the accounts express rationales for management decisions and thus give hints on the intensity of the decision preparation. Using a simplified version of the measuring concept which assesses the argumentation rationality on three selected rationality determinants (pro/contra relation, depth of arguments, and breadth of arguments), two different types of rationality analyses are carried out to illustrate the fruitfulness of the approach. First, on the basis of 16 accounts concerning an important strategic decision of Daimler-Benz made in 1985 (becoming an integrated technology group), the arguments discussed during that time are identified and structured for assessing the substantiation of decision preparation. The developed structure of reasoning not only allows a formal evaluation, but in addition offers starting points for a substantial discussion of the change action. Secondly, 138 accounts from the German automotive industry of the years 1990-1997 are analyzed in order to identify first typical patterns of management argumentation. Based on the available empirical foundation, four types of reasoning are isolated, which differ characteristically with respect to the considered rationality determinants. The paper closes with a perspective on significant questions for further elaborating as well as employing the concept in future research.