Skip navigation

putin IS MURDERER

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://oldena.lpnu.ua/handle/ntb/41304
Title: Rationality in decision-making within interorganisational networks
Authors: Danylovych-Kropyvnytska, M.
Limański, A.
Affiliation: Lviv Polytechnic National University
University of Silesia in Katowice (Poland)
Bibliographic description (Ukraine): Danylovych-Kropyvnytska M. Rationality in decision-making within interorganisational networks / M. Danylovych-Kropyvnytska, A. Limański // Economics, Entrepreneurship, Management. — Lviv : Lviv Politechnic Publishing House, 2017. — Vol 4. — No 2. — P. 9–14.
Bibliographic description (International): Danylovych-Kropyvnytska M. Rationality in decision-making within interorganisational networks / M. Danylovych-Kropyvnytska, A. Limański // Economics, Entrepreneurship, Management. — Lviv : Lviv Politechnic Publishing House, 2017. — Vol 4. — No 2. — P. 9–14.
Is part of: Economics, Entrepreneurship, Management, 2 (4), 2017
Issue: 2
Issue Date: 2017
Publisher: Lviv Politechnic Publishing House
Place of the edition/event: Lviv
UDC: 65.012.123
Keywords: inter-organisational networks
rationality
decision-making procedures
strategic balance
cooperative game
coalition
Number of pages: 6
Page range: 9-14
Start page: 9
End page: 14
Abstract: A networking structure is a natural phase in the evolution of organisational forms. An organisational form of a network is a set of interconnected structures and technological elements, i.e. individual economic agents, cultural and social values that arrange inter-organisational relations in a certain order and make network processes operate in a systemlike fashion. Effective joint work in inter-organisational networks suggests a need for a common goal, which is perceived to be a critical factor for joint activities. The paper studies the rationality of decisionmaking for inter-organisational networks. The analysis of behaviour within inter-organisational networks that consist of agents, like firms, entrepreneurs, governmental authorities, scientific centres, proves that group decisions are not always an optimal method to achieve a goal. There are certain tasks and circumstances when an authoritarian approach to problem solving is more sensible. It analyses a formalized model for joint choice, prevailing practice and rationality of group decisionmaking in order to reach a strategic balance within a network. The study summarizes key advantages and drawbacks in case a decision is made by a group.
URI: https://ena.lpnu.ua/handle/ntb/41304
ISSN: 2312-3435
Copyright owner: © Національний університет "Львівська політехніка", 2017
References (Ukraine): 1. Levine, J. M. & Moreland, R. L (1998). Small groups. The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., Vol. 2, P. 415–469.
2. Bornstein, G. & Yaniv, I. (1998). Individual and group behaviour in the ultimatum games: are groups more “rational” players. Experimental Economics, Vol. 1, P. 101–108.
3. Cox, J. C. (2002). Trust, reciprocity and otherregarding preferences: groups vs. individuals and males vs. females. Avoidances in Experimental Business Research, Vol. 108, P. 331–350.
4. Blinder, A. S. & Morgan, J. (2005). Are two heads better than one? An experimental analysis of group vs. individual decision making. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 7, P. 183–191.
5. Cason, T. N. & Mui, V.-L. (1997). A laboratory study of group polarisation in the team dictator game. Economic Journal, Vol. 107, P. 1465–1483.
6. Kozeletsky, Iu. (1979). Psychological theory of decisions. Moscow: Progress.
7. Diev, V. S. Joint decisions: pros & cons. Retrieved from www.philosophy.nsc.ru.
References (International): 1. Levine, J. M. & Moreland, R. L (1998). Small groups. The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., Vol. 2, P. 415–469.
2. Bornstein, G. & Yaniv, I. (1998). Individual and group behaviour in the ultimatum games: are groups more "rational" players. Experimental Economics, Vol. 1, P. 101–108.
3. Cox, J. C. (2002). Trust, reciprocity and otherregarding preferences: groups vs. individuals and males vs. females. Avoidances in Experimental Business Research, Vol. 108, P. 331–350.
4. Blinder, A. S. & Morgan, J. (2005). Are two heads better than one? An experimental analysis of group vs. individual decision making. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 7, P. 183–191.
5. Cason, T. N. & Mui, V.-L. (1997). A laboratory study of group polarisation in the team dictator game. Economic Journal, Vol. 107, P. 1465–1483.
6. Kozeletsky, Iu. (1979). Psychological theory of decisions. Moscow: Progress.
7. Diev, V. S. Joint decisions: pros & cons. Retrieved from www.philosophy.nsc.ru.
Content type: Article
Appears in Collections:Economics, Entrepreneurship, Management. – 2017. – Vol. 4, No. 2

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
2017v4n2_Danylovych-Kropyvnytska_M-Rationality_9-14.pdf153.45 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
2017v4n2_Danylovych-Kropyvnytska_M-Rationality_9-14__COVER.png364.97 kBimage/pngView/Open
Show full item record


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.