Both intuition and rationality can play important roles in strategic decision making. However, a framework that specifically accounts for the interplay between intuition and rationality is still missing. This study addresses this gap by using a paradox lens and conceptualizes the intuition–rationality duality as a paradoxical tension. We draw on seven case studies of innovation projects to empirically derive a three-step process for managing this intuition–rationality tension through paradoxical thinking. Our empirical data suggest that management of the tension starts with preparing the ground for paradoxical thinking by creating managerial acceptance for the contradictory elements of rational and intuitive approaches to decision making. The process then continues by developing decision-making outcomes through the integration of intuitive and rational practices. Finally, the outcomes of paradoxical thinking are embedded into the organizational context. For each step of the model, we indicate a set of practices that, by leveraging intuitive or rational characteristics of decision making, practitioners can use to deal with this cognitive tension in the different steps of our model.

No abstract

Valuation of cultural products tends to be problematic. In this paper, we provide insight into how valuation of cultural products takes place by describing the changing role and significance of different types of selection systems. Three basic types of selection systems are distinguished: market selection, peer selection, and expert selection. We show that the rise of a group of painters known as the Impressionists was facilitated by a change in the selection system of the visual arts industry from one dominated by peers into one dominated by experts. In the new selection system, innovativeness has become the most highly prized product characteristic, while a range of experts have begun to play an essential role, certifying the innovativeness of either individual artists or groups of artists.

In this article, the authors develop and empirically test a conceptual framework that predicts which types of awards have the biggest impact on the competitive performance of the award winners. The empirical setting is an industry where awards proliferate, namely, the U.S. motion picture industry. Overall, their results suggest that awards granted by a jury composed primarily of end consumers, peers, or experts each have a different effect on consumer behavior, which can be explained in terms of differences in source credibility and award salience.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5885/homepage/VirtualIssuesPage.html