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 |
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
2017v4n2_Danylovych-Kropyvnytska_M-Rationality_9-14.pdf | 153.45 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open | |
2017v4n2_Danylovych-Kropyvnytska_M-Rationality_9-14__COVER.png | 364.97 kB | image/png | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.