This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link DECISION THEORY AS PRACTICE: CRAFTING RATIONALITY IN ORGANIZATIONS AbstractThis paper explores the underlying practices whereby rationality -as defined in rational choice theory -is achieved within organizations. The qualitative coding of 58 case study reports produced by decision analysts, working in a wide range of settings highlights how organizational actors can make decisions in accord with the axioms of rational choice theory. Our findings describe the emergence of 'decision-analysis' as a field and reveal the complex and fragile socio-technical infrastructure underlying the craft of rationality, the central role of calculability, and the various forms of bricolage that decision-analysts deploy to make rational decisions happen. Overall, this research explores the social construction of rationality and identifies the practices sustaining the performativity of rational choice theory within organizations. Yet, this model has drawn its share of critics. The process school valuably complemented the rationalistic approach by uncovering the diversity of decision-making processes that organizations adopt (Mintzberg et al. 1976;Nutt 1984). It highlighted the various rationalities that inhabit organizations, such as the bounded (Allison 1971; March and Simon 1958; Simon 1955), political (Allison 1971Crozier and Friedberg 1980; Pettigrew 1973), and institutional rationalities (Lounsbury 2008;March and Olsen 1989). Key-words:This approach also unveiled the various uses, often symbolic, of formal decision-making tools in organizations (Langley 1989;Laroche 1995;Meyer and Rowan 1977). Lastly, critical perspectives on organizational decision-making challenged the concept of a 'decision' itself and demonstrated the potential irrationality of organizational decisions, (Brunsson 2007;Chia 1994;Cohen et al. 1972; Sfez 1973; Starbuck 1983;Tsang 2004 Finally, organizational researchers focus on decision-making processes rather than on the concrete practices of organizational decision-makers. Accordingly, they miss the role that material artefacts play in decision-making processes. Yet, some of the artefacts used by organizational actors embody a rational conception of decision-making. Hence, they could act as 'rationality carrier' and diffuse rationality through organizations. Thus, the 'lost' rationality of organizational decision-making (Laroche 1995) could be simply 2 As highlighted above, there is no consensus on what rationality is. Garfinkel (1967), for instance, identified up to fourteen forms of rationality. In this paper, we use the terms 'rationality' and 'rational decision-making' to refer to a specific view on rationality, that of rational choice theory (also called decision theory). From this perspective, a rational behaviour consists in evaluating the consequences of one's actions and choosing the actions that are consistent with one's preferences and beliefs so a...

Stakeholder theorists, like most strategists, are fond of telling managers what to do. Managers have moral obligations to stakeholders; managers should consider stakeholders' well-being if they wish to maximize firm performance. We are generous with advice, even when the empirical evidence of the central relationship is ambiguous (Margolis and Walsh, 2003;Rowley and Berman, 2000; cf. Dalton et al., 2007). Less often do we (strategy and stakeholder scholars) consider whether and to what extent managers have the freedom or capacity to act according to stakeholder theory's moral and instrumental prescriptions. To our knowledge, no published study of the relationship between stakeholder engagement and firm performance accounts for the fact that managers and firms face significant constraints on their freedom. In today's economic environment -with growing regulatory pressures, international wage and price tensions, scarce resources and increased pressures from the media and civil society -this omission is a conspicuous one. Stakeholder theorists would be well served to recall the axiom that 'ought implies can'. Any claim that an agent should behave in a certain way (normatively and instrumentally) necessarily assumes that it is possible to do so. Yet, the question of the very possibility of hewing to stakeholder theory's prescriptions remains unexplored.More deeply, stakeholders are themselves the source of many (perhaps most) of the constraints and catalysts faced; and the relationship between stakeholder treatment and firm performance is likely a dynamic and interactive one. In this essay we elaborate on the role of stakeholders as constraints and catalysts, and on the dynamism in relationships between firm managers and stakeholders. We argue that neglecting the dynamics of managerial discretion represents a serious oversight in stakeholder theoretic studies of firm strategy.We begin by elaborating on the building blocks for understanding the dynamic interrelationships between stakeholder theory, managerial discretion and stakeholder orientation. We then provide a sketch of the dynamic between managerial discretion and stakeholder orientation and their likely interaction. We conclude by considering some future research directions motivated by this dynamic. So!apbox Editorial EssayStrategic Organization 8(2) 176-183

Does stakeholder theory constitute an established academic field? Our answer is both “yes” and “no.” In the more than quarter-century since Freeman’s seminal contribution in 1984, this domain has acquired some of the administrative, social, and disciplinary trappings of an established field. Stakeholder research has coalesced around a unique intellectual position: that corporations must be understood within the context of their stakeholder relationships and that this understanding must grow out of the interplay between normative and social scientific insights. Yet, much of this domain remains an unexplored territory. In this article, the authors assess the progress to date toward field status and outline future directions for stakeholder research.

No abstract

Given the historical and ongoing influence of religion, religious faith traditions might provide a compelling and coherent normative core for stakeholder theory. This paper explores the three Abrahamic faith traditions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – and applies principles derived from these traditions to stakeholder theory. Our analysis of these faith traditions yields four elements of a common normative core that is germane to stakeholder theory: (1) the need to place community at the center of human activity, including business activity; (2) skepticism about economic power and its misapplication; (3) a tempering of our commitment to individual liberty as the highest normative good to be achieved by society; and (4) the dignity of the individual person and, with that, an obligation of reciprocity between the individual and society (including businesses). We then identify two current issues in stakeholder research, considering ways that the three faith traditions would advance discussion about them. We conclude by offering implications for future research.

Our search for answers to these questions started with our work with a global consumer electronics company. In the face of dwindling market share, the company's computer division needed to improve the speed and quality of its product development efforts. To innovate rapidly, engineers with disparate expertise needed to collaborate across functional and divisional lines. Mechanical and electrical engineers needed to come together to design lightweight, thin,

No abstract

Will stakeholder theory continue to transform how we think about business and society? On the occasion of this journal’s 60th anniversary, this review article examines the journal’s role in shaping stakeholder theory to date and suggests that it still has transformative potential. We conducted a bibliometric analysis of co-citations in the literature from 1984 to 2020. Reporting these results, we examine the field’s evolving structure. Contextualized theoretically as an accomplishment of institutional work—the creation of a meaningful and innovative field ideology—this structure is remarkable for how it integrates ethical and behavioral arguments, invites engagement from adjacent domains, and arrives at important insights for business and society. We advance a research agenda consistent with this larger institutional project.