Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decision Making by Communicative Design: Rational Argument in Organisations

  • Published:
Philosophy of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How can free and equal people cooperate to solve conflicts and common problems in a rational and legitimate way? In this article I deduce principles for doing so from the requirements of rational communication set out in the discourse theory of Jürgen Habermas. I apply them in defining a process of efficient decision making. What I call ‘communicative design’ denotes the design of a reason giving process in which the practice of proposing and assessing claims with regard to rulemaking and problem solving is undertaken on an equal and autonomous basis. Two sets of prescriptions are given: organisational principles for the composition of groups and argumentative principles for deliberation. However, any procedure aimed at achieving a rational consensus in decision making in organisations has to deal in practice with limitations of time, participation and the information available. Communicative design may not guarantee strictly rational decisions, then, but the procedure it constructs does promise relatively ‘more valid’ decisions than might be expected if another procedure had been adopted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. I am very grateful for comments on a previous version of this article provided by Nigel Laurie, Anders Molander and two anonymous referees.

  2. Cf_R Alexy A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989; J Habermas Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action Polity Press, Cambridge 1990; J Habermas Between Facts and Norms The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass 1996

    Google Scholar 

  3. J Elster Sour Grapes. Studies in the Subversion of Rationality p 42 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1983

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. J Habermas 1994 The Past as Future Polity Press, Cambridge 1994 p 101

    Google Scholar 

  5. J Habermas Between Facts and Norms p 107 The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass 1996

    Google Scholar 

  6. Here I draw on: S Benhabib Situating the Self. Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics Routledge, New York 1992 p 31; J Habermas Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action Polity Press, Cambridge 1990; and R Alexy A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989. See also E O Eriksen and J Weigård Understanding Habermas. On communicative action and deliberative democracy Continuum, London 2003

    Google Scholar 

  7. R Kemp ‘Planning, Public Hearings, and the Politics of Discourse’ in J Forester (ed) Critical Theory and Public Life MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1985 p 186

    Google Scholar 

  8. R Blaug ‘Between Fear and Disappointment: Critical, Empirical and Political Uses of Habermas’ Political Studies 45 pp 100–117 (1997) p 109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. I Mauss ‘Liberties and Popular Sovereignty: On Jürgen Habermas`s Reconstruction of the System of Rights’ Cardozo Law Review 17 pp 825–882 (1996) p 880f

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cf the distinction of Apel between part A and part B of discourse theory, and the distinction of Rawls between ‘ideal and non-ideal theory’: K-O Apel ‘Das Sokratische Gespräch und die gegenwärtigen Transformation der Philosophie’ in D Krohn et al (eds) Das Sokratische Gespräch — ein Symposion Junius, Hamburg 1989; John Rawls Political Liberalism Columbia University Press, New York 1993. Apel's part B and Rawls’ non-ideal theory are thought to control strategic action and power politics.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J Elster ‘Introduction’ in J Elster (ed) Deliberative Democracy Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1998 p 10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. D Gambetta ‘Claro!’ An Essay on Discursive Machismo’ in J Elster op cit, and J Fearon ‘Deliberation as Discussion’ in J Elster op ci

  13. This is based on a proposal from David Sciulli who links Talcott Parsons’ concept of the professions’ collegial organisation with legal procedural requirements.

  14. E O Eriksen Demokratiets sorte hull (The black hole of democracy) Abstrakt Forlag, Oslo 2001, and E O Eriksen ‘Leadership in a Communicative Perspective’ Acta Sociologica Vol 44 No 1 (2001)

  15. H Simon The Science of the Artificial The MIT Press, Boston 1969 p 55

    Google Scholar 

  16. J Habermas The Theory of Communicative Action bd. 1 Beacon Press, Boston 1984 p 15

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cf T C Schelling The Strategy of Conflict Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1960

    Google Scholar 

  18. For less strict claims, see A Gutmann and D Thompson Democracy and Disagreement The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.} 1996} p 101; John Rawls Political Liberalism Columbia University Press, New York 1993 p

    Google Scholar 

  19. J Habermas ‘A Genealogical Analysis of the Cognitive Content of Morality’ in J Habermas The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1998 p 31

    Google Scholar 

  20. G Brennan and J M Buchanan The Reason of Rules. Constitutional Political Economy Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1985 p 22

    Google Scholar 

  21. U Beck Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity Sage, London 1992 and N Luhmann Risk: A Sociological Theory deGruyter, Berlin 1993

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cf B Barber ‘Unconstrained Conversations: A Play on Words, Neutral and Otherwise’ Ethics 93 pp 330–348 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. H Wilke ‘Soziologische Aufklärung der Demokratitieorie’ in H Brunkhorst (ed) Demokratischer Experimentalismus Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 1998 p 27

    Google Scholar 

  24. N Luhmann Soziale Systeme Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 1984, cited in K Günther The Sense of Appropriateness p 8 State University of New York Press, Albany, N Y 1993 p 15

    Google Scholar 

  25. A O Hirschman The Passions and the Interests Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cf H Simon Administrative Behavior The Free Press, New York 1945

    Google Scholar 

  27. R Blaug ‘New Theories of Discursive Democracy: a User's Guide’ Philosophy and Social Criticism 22 pp 49–80 (1996) p 67 and K Baynes The Normative Grounds of Social Criticisms: Kant, Rawls and Habermas State University of New York Press, Albany N.Y. 1991 p 1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. For an account of path dependence see Duncan Pritchard ‘Are Economic Decisions Rational? Path Dependence, Lock-In and ‘Hinge’ Propositions’ Reason in Practice Vol 2 No 3 pp 29–40.

  29. N Luhmann ‘Systemtheoretische Argumentation’ in J Habermas and N Luhmann Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie — Was Leistet die Systemforschung Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 1971

    Google Scholar 

  30. K Günther The Sense of Appropriateness State University of New York Press, Albany, N Y 1993

    Google Scholar 

  31. K Günther ibid p 8

  32. A Gutmann and D Thompson Democracy and Disagreement The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1996 p 42

    Google Scholar 

  33. J Bohman Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1996 p 133, pp 197ff

    Google Scholar 

  34. J Habermas Between Facts and Norms The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1996

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cf T Parsons Essays in Sociological Theory The Free Press, New York 1964 and E O Eriksen Demokratiets sorte hull Abstrakt Forlag, Oslo 2001

    Google Scholar 

  36. This is a modified version of the eight principles laid down by D Sciulli ‘Habermas` Structural Change: Professions and Corporations Today’ paper, APSA Annual Meeting, San Francisco 1996 which are based on Lou Fullers ‘Threshold of Procedural Norms’ in L L Fuller The Morality of Law rev ed Yale University Press, New Haven 1969

    Google Scholar 

  37. Adapted from M Kettner ‘Scientific Knowledge, Discourse Ethics, and Consensus Formation on Public Policy Issues’ in R von Schomberg (ed) Science, Politics and Morality Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1993

    Google Scholar 

  38. In this part I draw on J S Dryzek Discursive Democracy. Politics, Policy, and Political Science Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990 pp 97ff

    Google Scholar 

  39. J Elster Ulysses and the Sirens rev ed Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1984

    Google Scholar 

  40. R J Fisher ‘The Problem-Solving Workshop in Conflict Resolution’ in R L Merritt (ed) Communication in International Politics University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Ill. 1972

    Google Scholar 

  41. R J Fisher ‘Third Party Consultations as a method of Intergroup Conflict Resolution’ Journal of Conflict Resolution 27 pp 301–334 (1983) p 323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. ‘Small size does increase the average individual's power within this or her group, but it also reduces the group's power vis-à-vis the rest of the world. But direct analysis of outcomes suggests that the interests of the poor are better protected in larger units.’ J Mansbridge Beyond Adversarial Democracy University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1983 p 279f.

  43. J S Dryzek op cit Cf also O R Young ‘Intermediaries: Additional thoughts on Third Parties’ Journal of Conflict Resolution 16 pp 51–65 (1972), and I M Young ‘Self-Determination as a Principle of Justice’ Philosophical Forum 11 pp 172–182 (1979)

  44. Cf. U Preuss ‘The Roundtable Talks and Breakdown of Communism’ in J Elster (ed) The Roundtable Talks and the Breakdown of Communism The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1996

    Google Scholar 

  45. R Alexy A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification p 188 Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989

    Google Scholar 

  46. R Alexy ibid p 193

  47. R Alexy op cit pp 196–197

  48. V Hösle ‘The Greatness and Limits of Kant's Practical Philosophy’ Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 13 pp 133–157 (1990) p 151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. See D Horster D ‘Sokratische Gespräche in der Erwachsenentbildung’ in D Krohn} et al (eds)} Das Sokratische Gespräch — Ein Symposion} Junius, Hamburg} 1989} p 151. Cf K-O Apel ‘Das Sokratische Gespräch und die gegenwärtigen Transformation der Philosophie’ in D Krohn et al (eds) ibid, and I M A M Pröpper ‘Argumentation and Power in Evaluation-Research and in its Utilization in the Policy Making Process’ in R von Schomberg (ed) Science, Politics and Morality. Scientific Uncertainty and Decision Making Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1993 p

    Google Scholar 

  50. On these terms see Chapter 10 in E O Eriksen and J Weigård Understanding Habermas. On communicative action and deliberative democracy Continuum, London 2003, and further R E Goodin (ed) The Theory of Institutional Design Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1996, and S L Elkin ‘Constitutionalism's Successor’ in S L Elkin and K E Sotan (eds) A New Constitutionalism Chicago University Press, Chicago 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  51. John Rawls Political Liberalism Columbia University Press, New York 1993 pp 54ff

    Google Scholar 

  52. J D Moon Constructing Community. Moral Pluralism and Tragic Conflicts Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1993 p 96

    Google Scholar 

  53. R A Dahl Democracy and Its Critics Yale University Press, New Haven 1989 p 161

    Google Scholar 

  54. B Peters ‘On Reconstructive Legal and Political Theory’ Philosophy & Social Criticism Vol 20 No 4 pp 101–134 (1994) p 113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. John Rawls A Theory of Justice Oxford University Press, Oxford p 198

  56. ‘Whereas a rationally motivated consensus (Einverständnis) rests on reasons that convince all the parties in the same way, a compromise can be accepted by the different parties each for its own different reasons.’ J Habermas Between Facts and Norms The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1996 p 166

    Google Scholar 

  57. I L Janis Groupthink Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1982 pp 262–63

    Google Scholar 

  58. J Bohman Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1996 and J Knight and J Johnson ‘What Sort of Political Equality Does Democratic Deliberation Require?’ in J Bohman and W Rehg (eds) Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1997

    Google Scholar 

  59. I M Young ‘Difference as a Resource for Democratic Communication’ in J Bohman and W Regh (eds) Deliberative Democracy The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1997

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Erik Odvar Eriksen (Professor of Political Science)

Authors
  1. Erik Odvar Eriksen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erik Odvar Eriksen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eriksen, E.O. Decision Making by Communicative Design: Rational Argument in Organisations. Philos. of Manag. 3, 47–62 (2003). https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20033113

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20033113

Keywords

Search

Navigation