An inquiry into pseudo‐legitimations: A framework to investigate the clash of managerial legitimations and employees' unfairness claims

Abstract

Based on the argumentation theory of new rhetoric, this paper offers an analytical framework to facilitate empirical investigations on how managers in organizations handle unfairness claims. The proposed framework advocates a rhetorical approach that seeks to understand whether managers absolve themselves of unfairness accusations by pseudo‐legitimations. Pseudo‐legitimation is defined as an attempt to legitimate an action without any genuine reasoning. While the precision of formal deductive reasoning tends not to apply to moral disputes, rhetoric enables rational argumentation and the use of practical reasoning to achieve resolution. Therefore, if managerial judgments are genuine products of reasoning, managers' use of rhetoric to legitimate their actions should be respected in acknowledging value plurality within their boundaries of authority. By contrast, managerial legitimations that are based on irrational grounds should be disrespected, as they can lead to arbitrariness and abuse of power. Institutional dynamics may either permit or inhibit such uses of irrationality. Thus, the proposed framework should be considered alongside the perspective of rhetorical institutionalism.

CSR politics of non‐recognition: Justification fallacies marginalising criticism, society, and environment

“…The second dimension distinguishes crisis situations from regular, everyday situations (Bozzolan et al., 2015, p. 147). Concerning the third dimension, tool of legitimacy, I also observe two types, material and rhetorical tools (Kurdoglu, 2019). In this article, I hope to contribute to the literature on mainstream business in regular situations.…”

Angels and devils?: How do benevolent and authoritarian leaders differ in shaping ethical climate via justice perceptions across cultures?

“…Followers may feel that authoritarian leader is manipulative and has a hidden agenda, and consequently perceive unfair treatment (Kurdoglu, 2019). Under consistent interaction with authoritarian leaders, followers realize that being submissive and obedient, and not questioning the leader are the expected and preferred behaviors (Cheng et al, 2004).…”

“…Since the focus of authoritarian leadership is to gain control, these leaders are less likely to engage in open communication with employees, and more likely to use a top‐down approach in decision making. Followers may feel that authoritarian leader is manipulative and has a hidden agenda, and consequently perceive unfair treatment (Kurdoglu, ). Under consistent interaction with authoritarian leaders, followers realize that being submissive and obedient, and not questioning the leader are the expected and preferred behaviors (Cheng et al, ).…”

The Mirage of Procedural Justice and the Primacy of Interactional Justice in Organizations

“…First, there can be profound disagreements in the endorsed values of two interlocutors. In such cases, the use of authority to adjudicate such disagreement is necessary (Kurdoglu 2019). Second, interlocutors can be simply ineffective at presenting their cases.…”

“…Through such a process, persuading the implied audience can be an important goal when the aim is to avoid attention from real authorities who may eventually intervene. Thus, managers can be urged to avoid the risk of being held accountable for their decisions by producing institutionally endorsed legitimations and not just any argument (Kurdoglu 2019). The problem focused in this paper relates to the fact that managers can secure support for their practices and decisions by merely appearing legitimate to an institutional gaze rather than engaging in heuristic discussions with concerned subordinates.…”