Understanding the Dialectic: A Meta-Decision-Making Explanation of the Structure of Shili and Renli Paper given at MCS’2002 International Workshop on Metasynthesis and Complex Systems, August 7-8, Shanghai, China. Cathal M. Brugha Department of Management Information Systems, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
[email protected] We introduce Nomology, a generic meta-model that is based in decision science. We show that all qualitative decision-making is based on dichotomous thinking, using different axes. As a consequence, the natural form of decision-making is as a form of adjustment, ensuring that balance is achieved within all the dichotomies. The two most important of these axes deal with the issue what should we do: more planning or more putting plans into effect, and where should we do it: more with people or more in place or with systems. These combine to form four primary activities: Proposition, Perception, Pull and Push. A complication occurs with subjective decision-making, such as with one’s committing (introverted) and convincing (extroverted) processes. In both cases the “people” aspect becomes oneself. Consequently, the Pull aspect of putting one’s plans to oneself becomes a trivial event and the four activities reduce to three, or trichotomies. These are well known in the West as the dialectic, based on thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Committing examples include analysis, design and implementation; needs, preferences and values; getting, doing and making; somatic, psychic, and pneumatic. Convincing examples include technical, contextual and situational; self, others and purpose; involving, protecting and observing. We show that parallels can be drawn between an Oriental systems methodology, Wuli, Shili, Renli (WSR), and the Adjusting, Convincing and Committing dimensions in Nomology. We use this match to explore the commonalities between several Shili and convincing trichotomies, for example that Shili can involve mathematics, theory and practice. We explore committing trichotomies with parallel aspects of Renli, namely Sheng-ren, Shou-ren and Jia-ren. From Yang (1993) (in a Chinese Psychotherapy context) Chinese
Western
Sheng-ren means relating to those whom we know very little about
Somatic, relates to needs Has Physical, Political, Economic aspects
Shou-ren means relating to those with whom we are familiar
Psychic, relates to likes Has Social, Cultural, Emotional aspects
Jia-ren means relationships with family, kin or clan
Pneumatic (highest level), relates to basic values Has Artistic, Religious, Mystical aspects
Focusing on these meanings can bring out the differences between China and the West regarding the nature of the importance of business and family relationships. We should share Chinese and Western systems experience, and help to develop mutual understanding.
KEY WORDS: systems methodology; Nomology; decision science; philosophy; Wuli; Shili; Renli; WSR. References: Brugha, C. (1998), “The structure of qualitative decision making”, European Journal of Operational Research, 104 No. 1 p. 46-62. (Given below). Yang, K.S. (1993), “Chinese Social Orientation: An Integrative Analysis”, in Cheng, L.Y., Cheung, F.M.C. and Chenb C.N. (eds.), Psychotherapy for the Chinese: Selected papers from the First International Conference, (The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong), pp. 19-56.
The structure of qualitative decision-making Cathal M. Brugha Abstract: A system is proposed for analysing qualitative decision-making. Its structure is based on dichotomous answers to simple questions. What should be done? Has it more of a planning emphasis, or has it more to do with putting plans into effect? Where should it be done? Is it more in the place of the decision-making activity, or has it more to do with the people involved? These lead to the creation of four general kinds of activity: proposition, perception, pull and push, which are shown to be phases in a cycle. Corresponding primary feelings are identified: fear, anxiety, guilt and resentment, and, similarly, appropriate responses: faith, hope, righteousness and love. A distinction is made between the decision-possessor and the decision-participant. Guilt is seen as imposed by a decision possessor on the decision participant as part of a pull activity. Subjective (as distinct from objective) decisionmaking arises when the decision possessor is subjectively involved as the participant; the pull activity does not occur and consequently guilt cannot arise. Subjective decision making is shown to be a developmental activity which has three levels: somatical, psychical and pneumatical. By contrast, objective decision making is seen to correspond more to adjustment to outside impulses. Supporting evidence from different contexts is given to show that such categorisations of activities are natural to decision-making.
Keywords: Decision theory; Philosophy; Management; Systems; Marketing; Nomology
1.
Introduction
Mankind has always lived with dichotomy: about routes to choose, leaders to follow, whether to purchase or not. The study of decision-making is no exception: quantitative analysis versus qualitative, rigorous proofs versus anecdotal, hard versus soft, whether it be subjects taught in college or the treatment of data about some problem. As is well known, management science (otherwise known as operations, operational research or O.R.), because of its origin, has always had a bias towards quantitative techniques, for example linear programming, inventory control and queuing theory. Having started with considerable impact, much of O.R.'s more useful techniques were adopted by other quantitatively orientated communities, such as accountants and engineers. O.R. then appeared to have lost its sense of purpose because it was not providing new paradigms which could significantly help decision-makers. Meanwhile, the pace of business increased with managers finding themselves faced with new and varied pressures when making decisions, many of which involved soft or behavioural issues which did not fit easily into operational research. In the 1980s some management scientists responded to this challenge by turning their attentions to multi criteria analysis. Various techniques were developed, some of which are used extensively in practice by managers in the 1990s, thus reversing the previous decline. Currently there is much controversy about the methodologies underlying some of the new techniques, making this an interesting field of research. There seems to be agreement on the following major point. The traditional operational research "black box" approach is on the way out. This was where the manager lost contact with the problem between the initial definition and provision of a solution. The operational researcher worked on the data with models which were too complex for anyone else to understand, carried out the analysis, and ultimately told the manager what the best decision should be. It is now becoming accepted that the decision-maker should be part of the process because he or she knows the values of different criteria which cannot be quantified in terms of a common measure. This nonquantifiability or distinction between the quality of different criteria is usually described as qualitative. The structure of qualitative decision-making is determined by the science of the laws of the mind. This science was named nomology by Sir William Hamilton (1877, pp. 122-8). Management scientists have tended to ignore the possible contribution of nomology maybe because they thought it to be impenetrable or alternatively because they thought that each decisionmaker's qualitative thought processes were unique and, so, did not follow rules which could be described and lead to the development of normative processes. If management science (the science of management) is to become more relevant it should take on the challenge of incorporating a scientific approach to qualitative issues. There is every reason to suspect that management science can provide a useful contribution to this field. Management scientists have always believed that their approach has a lot to offer. Usually they are eclectic, well-trained mathematicians who like to model the essence of a problem, deal with concrete situations and provide workable solutions. The system described here is intended to describe the basic rules of qualitative decision making.
Every day people make decisions about how to deal with the problems facing them. What they decide to do and how they choose to do it comes out of the melting pot of their experience and training, their personality and their environment. The aim of this study is to examine these choices in a scientific way, discover some underlying rules inherent in management decision-making and show how awareness of these rules could be used to help improve the quality of decisions. In this article certain nomological axioms will be proposed on the basis that they occur naturally. The word naturally obviously refers to human nature, i.e. to the human mind: the normal pattern of thinking. Of course a lot of thinking is unfocused, unconcentrated or random in some way. This research is not concerned with this type of thinking. The intention is to consider patterns of thinking which reflect people's best practice, i.e. optimal thinking. The axioms presented will be combined into a system that, it will be suggested, reflects a pattern that is common throughout all decision making. The axioms will be presented in a logical form corresponding to how it appears that a decision maker acts. There will not be any mathematical proofs. The system will be justified partly by appeal to the common sense of the reader, but also by demonstrating that it exists in nature, albeit in different guises, by reference to different and unconnected reports of decision-making behaviour. In selecting the supporting evidence preference will be given to systems used by practitioners, surveys of best practice in management and empirical research. Various principles of good management will be developed and recommendations made. Has this sort of thing been done before? The answer is yes, but mainly in other disciplines. The philosopher Hegel discussed very much in the abstract what it is hoped will be described here in a more concrete form. The management scientist starts from the premise that the human's primary focus is decision making not philosophy. Whether the decision making processes are those of someone in a crisis or of a baby exploring the responsiveness of those around it to its needs, the following stands to reason:
Principle 1: Decision making processes, in general, are invariant and more likely to be simple than complex.
In short, the management scientist's version of "I think, therefore I am" would be "I decide, therefore I think". There is a further development of the assumption that there already exists a natural system embodying rules of best practice in decision making.
Principle 2: In any culture, there should be a natural language that incorporates the concepts of a nomological system.
Hence, where a term needs to be defined it will be presumed that the correct word already exists and should be used, even though its definition might require some small modification. If successful,
the language used for any terms that are defined here will appear natural and unartificial, although the development of the term differently to the current usage might initially appear surprising. Our approach, therefore, is also very different to social science that tends to observe and explain, and develops an occasionally abstract language of its own to describe its concepts, somewhat similarly to philosophy.1 Our insistence on avoiding abstract language is part of the discipline of trying to find the natural system, even if it means trawling different fields for the appropriate words. There are, however, some parallels with the grounded theory approach used in qualitative research, for example labelling phenomena, discovering dimensions and developing categories of activity. (Strauss and Corbin, 1990)
2.
Basic theory
Axiom 1: When people have a complex and not obviously structured decision-making problem that cannot be solved using standard quantitative techniques they try to analyse it by breaking it down into dimensions with which they are familiar by means of asking simple questions.
Axiom 2: The natural way that problem-solvers structure their answers to such questions is in terms of dichotomies, i.e. questions with either/or answers.
This is the simplest approach and allows the decision-maker to make a judgement based on the balance between two alternatives. It does not require any existing decision-making framework. It may be done relatively subconsciously, but essentially the initial approach is to ask: "What is the nature of the issue or problem here?" If its nature is well-known then there will be a feeling of certainty about the direction to follow. If it is not well-known, the need to resolve the associated uncertainty will dominate the decision.
Axiom 3: The first dichotomy to be considered relates to the question what should be done. If we are relatively unclear about what should be done then we will focus on a planning aspect. If, on balance, we feel relatively clear about the direction that should be taken we will focus on a putting 2 aspect. 1 See
Robert Audi's article (Audi, 1981) on Inductive-Nomological Explanations and Psychological Laws. If his article were put into a decision making context his argument against deterministic and in favour of stochastic (i.e. probabilistic) links between explanations and decisions would seem obvious. The article also highlights a big difference between social science and management science. The social scientist is more concerned with why something happened, the management scientist more with what should be done. 2 A note about language: In this system we are going to describe categories of behaviour and, in some cases, to tailor some words to suit these categories. Where possible, the most obvious words will be used such as, in this case, the word planning. The word putting is preferred here because it is more general than implementation, it is more focused than doing, and it is crisper than alleviation. Examples of its use would include "putting a plan into effect" and "putting a new organizational structure in place". As the system was developed it turned out that most of the key words had the initial letter "p". It was decided to follow this pattern in one part of the system not only to add some distinctiveness to the system whereby users might be able to remember the key words, but also to highlight that the terms will less draw meaning from their traditional usage than describe activities that are defined in terms of a hierarchy of categories. Thus there is a sense in which this system is about the development of a language to help analyse management activities.
The difference relates to the position on a future/past dimension, as assessed by the decisionmaker. Has the question "what should be done?" been more rather than less answered. In answering this, for example in the negative, i.e. indicating that there seems to be a greater need to resolve the planning than the putting aspect one is not, in any way, suggesting that no direct action should be taken. All planning must take account of how the plans will be put into effect, and vice versa. Likewise, if managers are clear about what they want to do, such as, for example, restructuring the company, this cannot be done without reference to planning. So, if management is putting a new structure in place allowance must be made for the fact that, on the one hand, the new structure will be required to facilitate planning and, on the other hand, restructuring must itself be carefully planned. So, planning and putting activities overlap one another. However, a central aspect which determines how a decision maker will proceed is the level of uncertainty about what should be done. Making the decision about the balance of uncertainty can help to bring focus onto the direction which should be taken. If the uncertainty is high the decisions will be somewhat tentative or exploratory; if low they will be more definite or determined. See Figure 1.
Figure 1. The What? dichotomy
Obviously, it follows that, if the decision-maker has decided to focus more on planning, then planning needs will take precedence, and likewise for putting. In effect, the logical decision-maker tries to correct imbalances. This is true for all dichotomies. The consequence of this is the following.
Axiom 4: Every system involving qualitative decision-making will have an inbuilt tendency to try to find a balance between all the relevant dichotomies.
Ultimately the well-cared-for organisation should not have any distinctly glaring needs. In the limit, the needs of both sides of a dichotomy should be equal. Because of this, it is not primarily the problem itself that determines the tendency towards a balance between two sides of a dichotomy ; this occurs more because of the way people break problems down in terms of either / or on various relevant dimensions. The next dimension reveals itself in a similar way, that is by logically following that natural process of questioning. The first question related to what should be done.
Axiom 5: The second dichotomy relates to the question where it should be done. Should we be doing something in a particular place, for instance in some part of the company or organisation, such as spending some money on a project or restructuring an institution? Or should we be focusing more on the people involved, agreeing what should be done or motivating the participants?
As in the planning versus putting situation, focusing on place versus people is not a question of mutual exclusivity but of where should be the balance of the activity for the time being.
Axiom 6: Because the key questions asked are independent of each other so the answers should find their own balance independently of the others.
Consequently the planning / putting dimension is independent of the place / people dimension. So, it follows that we should expect a balance in terms of these activities amongst all four combinations, and this should be a criterion of good management. See Figure 2.
Figure 2. The What? and Where? dichotomies
This structuring, it is proposed, is central to all qualitative decision-making. Hence the following axiom must be true.
Axiom 7: The activities based on combinations of dichotomies of different dimensions have meaning and importance in the practice of decision-making.
The combination of a planning activity that occurs within place (i.e. the organisation, group or company) refers to any proposal or suggestion of what should be done coming out of the institution's own situation or capability. So, if some problem arises that cannot be handled using standard practice, it is usual to try some modification within the ambit of the organisation's direct control. A typical comment might be along the following lines. "There is something wrong with this place. Half of our income comes from a minority of our products, and yet most of our expenses go on products that are
producing virtually no income at all. Changes will have to be made around here. I propose that budgets be allocated strictly on the basis of income." Out of such a suggestion can come some kind of action. It may not fully solve the problem, but, if it did, then the problem may have been solved without any further trouble. This could be described as a proposition activity. A misunderstanding can arise here. If the manager makes a decision about budget allocation how could this be described as a planning or proposition activity? We need to distinguish between two levels of the manager's thinking. We could call them low and high level, or conscious and subconscious, or immediate and longer term. When faced with a problem the manager must make some kind of decision: the low level, or conscious or immediate decision. It is not necessary for the manager to have a full appreciation of all the consequences of the decision or even of the problem itself. When, on balance, the manager is relatively unclear about the problem any decisions have a tinge of uncertainty about them. These are the planning decisions. If the manager has relatively little understanding of what the people involved or affected think about the situation, then any decisions appear as propositions which require to be considered as part of the ongoing process of dealing with the situation. If trying various proposals has failed to resolve the problem the next step is to stop looking for solutions only in the place one controls, and consider the broader perspective: i.e. look to the people who are involved whether directly or indirectly: employees, customers, suppliers. "Let's find out what the people think about these new ideas. Maybe we need to change our perception of ourselves and our market." The combination of a planning activity that occurs amongst the people involved focuses on developing a new perception, an identification of what those involved think should be done. The switch over from planning to putting is mediated by the fullest possible involvement of all the people concerned. At this point the uncertainty which people have felt about what should be done has been reduced as much as possible. The next step, after there is agreement about the plan, is to bring the people along, to get them to adopt the new perception in their work for the company or organisation. The combination of a putting activity that occurs amongst the people involved amounts to trying to motivate them, i.e. to pull them along. Once the people have been consulted and considered, the final step involves putting into effect the new agreements. Many of the company rules and structures may have been a long time in place, benefiting some more than others. Likewise there may be some older personnel who have "always done things this way and don't see the need to change". There will be resistance to change. The combination of a putting activity that occurs within the place is characterised by a push activity as the institution with all its structures and ways of doing things needs to be forced to accommodate the changing situation and then used to achieve the aims of the people involved. So, the sequence of putting activities mirrors that of planning.
Axiom 8: Planning starts first in place and then moves to people; putting starts amongst the people and then moves back into place.
To summarise so far, the suggestion is that decision-makers tend to analyse problems by breaking them into four general kinds of activity. These activities, or categories of behaviour, are each important in themselves. However, it is also important that a balance be kept in the usage of all of them. Furthermore, their application follows a natural sequence or phases.
See Figure 3 for a description of the four phases of activity and Figure 4 showing them presented in a cycle. Is there any evidence to suggest that these four activities: proposition, perception, pull and push do tend to find a balance between one another? If this were so we should expect to find them in standard management practice, although not necessarily using the same language. One way to discover this would be through surveys. An equally good source of such confirmation is the reviews of management practice by leading authors who have observed a lot of company behaviour. We would expect that successful managers and better companies should exhibit such behaviour and leading exponents of good management should be promoting practices that fit this pattern.
Figure 3. The four phases of activity
Figure 4. The four sectors of activity
Thomas V. Bonoma (1985), of Harvard Business School, offers a set of activities that correspond quite closely to the four outlined above. In a section on implementing or execution skills he suggests (pp. 35-7) that managers bring "four skills to the marketing job: interacting, monitoring, allocating and organising". His description of interacting parallels our proposition activity. The implementers were quick to act, proposed more action plans, and were "combat-ready" that is to say, good implementers are able to make sharp tactical decisions under pressure. Starting as it does with "the implementers" his description looks, at first, like a putting activity. However, on reflection it is easy to see that the focus is on trying new solutions, exploring ideas, more on planning. Also, although he is talking about managers his focus is less on people and more on making use of the capacities that the institution has in place as a first step in a planning process. His description of monitoring corresponds to our perception activity. Good implementers puzzle, struggle, and wrestle with their markets and their businesses until they can simply and powerfully express the critical "back-of-the-envelope" ratios necessary to run the business regardless of control system inadequacies. Notice that his focus is more on people such as in markets and less on the institution and its control systems. His description of allocating fits closest to our pull activity. Able implementers seem to have no false sense of charity or egalitarianism, but rather are tough and fair in putting effort and dollars where they pay back.
The purpose of allocating, as he describes it, is to use resources as means of pulling people in the direction of the company's goals. The last of his skills, organising, matches with our push activity. Good implementers have an almost uncanny ability to create afresh an informal organisation to match each different problem with which they are confronted. He refers to managers' abilities at "networking" and at "customising" their informal organisation to "allow better execution". This corresponds to the activity of putting new systems and structures in place. It requires an ability to push forward new ways of doing things and discard out-of-date practices. The focus is less on encouraging people to agree with your view and more on pushing a new focus onto the institution despite its resistance to change. John Kay (1993), of London Business School, offers four broad categories of ways that businesses can be different and thus become sources of advantage. These are innovation, reputation, architecture and strategic assets. His description of innovation corresponds with a capacity for our proposition activity. His description of reputation fits closest to our perception activity. His use of the word architecture mirrors our pull activity. A strong architecture would imply a network of stable relational contracts or implicit understandings between participants that govern their behaviour toward each other. The capacity to unite a range of interests behind a common purpose would have been an important feature of some of the more successful companies he observed. Our push activity matches his strategic assets criterion. By this he means particular capabilities that arise from structural advantages such as a government sanctioned monopoly or airline landing slots. The difference between the different usages of terms is that he would focus on the factor that appears to be the cause of a capability. For instance, an example of a company's strategic asset could be its capacity to inhibit another company's market entry. Our usage of the term "push" focuses more on the nature of the activity. Michael Goold and Andrew Campbell (1987, pp. 301-8), of the London Business School Centre for Business Strategy, offer four "Universal Right Ways of doing things": matching, understanding the businesses, open communication and mutual respect and energy and common purpose. By matching they mean the "fit between the nature of the businesses in which a company operates, the resources it has at its disposal, and the strategic management style selected", or, in our language, propositions which are appropriate to the situation. The correspondence of the other three is obvious. They suggest that their ideals may seem soft or difficult to pin down, but that they "express the true denominators of successful decision-making". The main difference between their "ideals" approach and our four phases of activity is that we would claim them to be the basis of all qualitative decisionmaking. Another group in the same centre (Marsh et al, 1988, p.1) used a similar structure in a study of strategic investment decisions (SIDs). They had the following four perspectives:
•
the evolution and development of the project through time, and the process of learning and innovation,
•
the forms of financial, strategic, and operational analysis used,
•
the SID as a 'political' process, with negotiation between the project team and others inside and outside the company,
•
the impact of formal systems and the senior management hierarchy.
Again, the parallels are fairly obvious: proposition with learning and innovation, perception with analysis, pull with negotiation, and push with formal systems / senior management hierarchy.
We have seen that these four activities: proposition, perception, pull and push do tend to appear in management practice. We are suggesting that these natural categorisations of activity go beyond management in the narrow sense into the broad field of the management of human affairs. A confirmation comes from broad-based surveys of social and cultural practices. An example is the HERMES cross-cultural study which was based on surveys in 1968 and 1972 producing over 116,000 questionnaires which were collected throughout 40 countries. Geert Hofstede (1980), reported that cultures were revealed to differ on four main dimensions: uncertainty avoidance, individualism, power distance and masculinity. Uncertainty avoidance was used to describe the "combination of stress, need for fixed company rules, and the need for continuity with the company". (1980, p.77) Within any company there is an ongoing need to manage or control new propositions. Having set procedures for dealing with new situations can be particularly useful and can help control stressinducing fear. So, uncertainty avoidance is a description of the intention of proposition activities. Because this was a study of culture, the perception activity related to self-perception which was described as the measure of one's individualism, i.e. how much one was emotionally dependent on other groups. (1980, p.221) The measure of power distance (corresponding to pull in our system) was mainly taken from responses to the question "How frequently are employees afraid to express disagreement with their managers?". (1980, p.76) The push activity was described as masculinity because of "near consistency on men scoring advancement and earnings as more important, women interpersonal aspects, rendering service, and the physical environment as more important". (1980, p.261) In the context of culture this association is not surprising as pushiness is a masculine attribute. The illustrations given above as supporting evidence for the existence of the four categories of activity used very different descriptions of the categories, even though three came from the one school. This is indicative of how universal the structure is. It may have appeared to the researchers, in each of the above situations, that these four sectors or categories of activity arose only in their specific applications. We would suggest that it is important to use generic terms. The illustrations each developed some ideas, but they did not benefit from each other as much as they could have if they had been seen to be examining aspects of the same subject. A further benefit of using generic terms such as proposition, perception, pull and push is that they can be used to develop theory which can be applied
to situations in general. If this structure is as important as we believe it is then the associated theory should also be fundamental.
3.
Feelings and responses
Corresponding to each sector of activity there is a feeling. These feelings are defined in the same way as are the activities, i.e. arising from an emphasis more on planning or more on putting, and likewise on place or with people. The feeling associated with the first activity, proposition, is fear . It corresponds to an impending threat coming from some place outside oneself. A problem has arisen which has created a fear. If someone does not propose a solution it is feared that the company will fail. The people in the company fear the consequences of whatever management might propose. The proposition activity itself may reduce the fears of failure and of change. The fears themselves can be worked on through developing a better feeling about the future and the threat from outside. The response that deals with fear is faith 3 . Faith is the expectation that the future will be bright. In proposing a solution to a problem the manager acts in good faith and expects that all will be well. If he cannot overcome his fear, then whatever he proposes may do more harm than good. The faithful employee is the one who does not lose heart, i.e. the one who stays with the company in times of the greatest uncertainty, when others fear that the company has lost direction. The feeling associated with the second planning activity, perception, is anxiety. Fear arises from not knowing enough about the threat and what it might do. If the impending threat is so awful that there is nothing that can be done about it, i.e. no proposition is workable, then it may not be possible to move beyond fear. But if one has coped with fear and now one believes that there is some solution to the problem, i.e. one has faith in the ultimate outcome being good, then one moves into considering alternative possible solutions. The change is from a planning activity focused on the place which is the source of the fear to a planning activity amongst the people who will deal with the problem. The main question that arises is about what should be done? Having many choices creates anxiety. The development of a clear perception of the problem clarifies the options, helps eliminate sub optimal alternatives, and so reduces anxiety. The anxieties themselves can be worked on through developing more confidence about one's capacity to cope and make decisions. The response that deals with anxiety is hope . The hopeful employee does not insist on knowing every detail, but trusts management's ability to produce a plan. Just as the focus of fear was the outside threat, the focus of anxiety is the inner response. So, the main change in feelings corresponding to the move from place to people, is from outer-orientated to inner-orientated feelings. As before, this pattern is reversed when dealing with the feelings associated with putting. 3 Some
of the terms that will be used here, such as faith, have religious connotations. These terms are being used only because they best describe the appropriate response to a category of feelings such as fear, for example. The presence of such terms should not imply to the reader that this system for analysing decision-making falls within the set of rules associated with the religious faith of a particular group of people. Hopefully the reader will take the opposite view and see that religious activity follows some natural rules of decision-making and has, for a very long time, been at the forefront of showing the way in some aspects of decision-making.
The feeling associated with pull, the first putting activity, is guilt. 4 It is inner-orientated and comes when one is not pulling with the rest of the team. At this point the planning activity is mainly concluded. Consequently, there is general expectancy that each individual not only supports the agreed plans but also is committed to working for them. If someone does not help to implement the solution the others in the company will make that person feel guilty. Management or fellow workers can offer help to a person who resists supporting the common goal. It may mean clarifying for that person what has been decided, i.e. the agreed perceptions. It may include exhortations to join the consensus. It may even involve developing new partnership agreements which improve the relationship with that person in exchange for a commitment to the aims of the company. Thus the pull activity itself may reduce the feelings of guilt and help to deal with whatever gave rise to the unwillingness to work towards the agreed objectives. Any feeling of guilt that one might feel can also be reduced by acting correctly in everything that one does. The response that deals with guilt is righteousness.5 The righteous employee knows that he or she has not acted incorrectly, has followed every rule, responded to every request, can defend every action. The feeling associated with the last activity, push, is resentment. If one tries to push through a change there is bound to be resentment. Even those who have to push through the change will resent the imposition of the problem on themselves. The push activity itself may create the momentum necessary to overcome resentment. Alternatively, any resentments can be worked on through developing better feelings about the place of work, the work itself and about the people who work there. The good manager who is charged with the responsibility of pushing through hard decisions does so by taking account of the hurt that change can bring. The changes that must be pushed through may reach far beyond the company into markets and legislative structures. So the focus moves back from being inner-orientated to being outer-orientated. There is a need for another type of energy to carry through these changes despite the disruption that may be caused. This energy reaches out to those affected by the changes which have to be pushed through, the people who resent their situation being affected. The appropriate response to deal with resentment is love . The good manager is aware of the hurt involved in a loss of status when pushing through a solution, and gives genuine help to those who are aggrieved. He or she is motivated by something beyond selfishness. He or she loves the work, loves to see it brought to fruition, wishes that all will benefit. Likewise, the loving employee is prepared to make sacrifices for the good of the organisation, is not resentful about a loss of status or the shelving of their favourite project, and rises above his or her feelings by considering the common good of all. In summary, corresponding to each of the four general activities or phases there is a feeling, call it a primary feeling, and a corresponding appropriate response. When considering a new proposition the associated feeling is one of fear for which the response is faith. When developing one's perception about a situation the feeling one has is anxiety which is diminished by increasing hope. When one is 4 Guilt
should be understood to mean a feeling which one gets because of not responding as one has been expected to. It should not be confused with being found guilty of some offence in a court of law. 5 The word righteousness is archaic. Nevertheless, the fact that it has fallen into disuse does not invalidate it. The only alternative would be to use a phrase such as "acting correctly"; this would be cumbersome.
being pulled to do something the feeling one gets is of guilt which reduces if one acts in the right way. And when pushing through a solution one encounters resentment for which the antidote is love. See Figure 5.
Figure 5. The four primary feelings and responses
4.
Subjective decision-making
In the ordinary course of events in a company one should expect to see planning and putting activities happening, and each occurring both in the place of the company and amongst its people. Thus the four phases of decision-making activity described above normally should appear equally often. From the point of view of decision-making in general there should be no essential difference between them. When dealing with the problems in a company, organisation, economy or any other group one would expect to see equal proportions of instances where they might suggest that they make some proposition, develop some perception, pull everyone towards some goal or push some solution through. This is not always the case. Consider the elements of a decision. There is the decision possessor who owns the resources, motivates the people involved, takes responsibility for the outcomes, rewards success and punishes failure, and controls the benefits. There is the decision participant, who is the actual decision-maker, and who is involved in the decision-making process on behalf of the possessor. Then there is the project itself, the object of the participant's attention, but owned by the possessor.
Now consider the relationships between the three elements in terms of the primary feelings of the decision participant. In general, the possessor influences the participant who, in turn, influences the project. See Figure 6.
POSSESSOR
PARTICIPANT
PROJECT
Figure 6. The general direction of influence
For most kinds of project the participant will experience all four primary feelings. Fear can arise either from a perceived threat that the possessor may take him off the project, or from some impending problem to do with the project itself. Anxiety can arise if the project turns out to be more complex than the participant initially expected, or if the possessor constantly questions the participant's judgement. Guilt is experienced when the participant ignores the implied or stated requests of the possessor and something goes wrong with the project. And, finally, resentment is felt when the possessor makes excessive demands on the performance of the participant, or when the project stretches the capability of the decision participant. In all four cases the prospects and performance of the project affect the decision participant. See Figure 7.
POSSESSOR
PARTICIPANT
PROJECT
Figure 7. How the decision participant is affected
A difference occurs where there is a subjective involvement on the part of the possessor of the project, i.e. where the possessor is also the decision participant. See Figure 8.
POSSESSOR/ PARTICIPANT
PROJECT
Figure 8. Influences when the possessor is participant
The following are some distinguishing examples between subjective and objective decisionmaking (which is defined by contrast to be where the decision-participant is not also the decisionpossessor).
(1) I have just destroyed a painting I do not like. Objective case: I work as a curator in an art gallery and I have destroyed a national treasure; I should feel guilt. Subjective case: I painted the picture a few minutes ago. It is my own affair; so I do not feel guilt about destroying it. (2) An academic project I am working on suffers constant delays. Objective case: This was an assignment which I was required to deliver completed by a certain date; if I do not pull with what my boss expects I am likely to get into trouble. Subjective case: This is my own private research and is not directly in the field of my job. It really does not matter one way or the other. No one is pulling me to do this work; I am doing it purely for myself. In both examples the main differentiating feeling is the absence of guilt in the subjective case. This is a general distinction. It may be difficult to interpret at times. The distinctions between the decision possessor and the decision participant were very clear in the objective case of both examples. What if the decision possessor corresponds to one's higher self which has some vague long-term personal agenda and the decision participant to one's lower self which controls day-to-day routine activity? Consider again the academic project above. The objective case was assumed to be objective because the assignment had to be delivered by a certain date to someone else. My higher self could have specified a timetable and delivery dates to my lower self. Thus, the overall project could be determined by subjective decision-making (about my personal career development) and sub-parts by objective decision-making (about the various tasks that my job entails). Now consider again the subjective case. Even though nobody else knows about this research project, maybe I would impose a feeling of guilt on myself if I failed to complete the project. Likewise, maybe I hope that my private research might produce something useful for my job; so, now, it has moved into a grey area of being a bit of both, in which case I have an ongoing dialogue about how useful it is and whether I am wasting time. So, guilt can sometimes be difficult to determine or observe. The key observable distinction is if the possessor is affected by the progress of the project as shown in Figure 8. This is what determines subjective involvement. More is at stake for the decision participant; success or failure of the project itself will mean a significant gain or loss to the possessor. With objective decision-making the decision participant is more concerned with what the supervisor thinks and with not getting into trouble. The determination of whether the decision-maker is going to be objectively or subjectively involved in the focus of the decision is decided after considering the first two dichotomies: planning versus putting and place versus people. At this point the four phases of decision activity have been considered with respect to the problem and the four primary feelings exist. This can be expressed as the following.
Axiom 9: The third dichotomy relates to the question who possesses the problem. If it is not the decision-participant then his or her involvement will be primarily objective in character, in which case he or she can feel at some distance from the problem. If it is the decision-participant then his or her involvement will be more subjective , in which case he or she cannot self-impose a feeling of guilt about not dealing with the problem.
If the decision possessor is subjectively involved, and consequently guilt is absent as a primary feeling in the decision process, then it follows that the associated attributes must also be missing. The response to guilt was righteousness. Acting rightly can only be measured objectively. For the subjective decision-maker who is involved in the consequence of every decision, the question of acting wrongly does not arise. Mistakes may be made, but these can be traced to an incorrect perception of what should be done. But for a decision-maker to consciously act against the perception of what he or she has just decided is correct is a logical impossibility. If it appears to have happened this must be traceable to a change in perception or to a mistake. Likewise, when the decision possessor and the decision participant are identical, it is obvious that the following is true.
Axiom 10: With subjective decision-making the pull activity becomes irrelevant.
From comparing Figures 7 and 8 it is clearly seen that the concept of a person pulling him or herself is a logical contradiction, and thinking it possible can only arise from a confusion about the difference between pulling and pushing activities. Both are putting activities; this means that, on balance, there is a plan and what remains is its implementation. The pull activity corresponds to building the motivation in someone else to put the plan into effect. The focus of the push activity is the place where the changes need to be made, and building the energy to overcome the obstacles that exist in that place.
5.
Development within subjective decision-making
To explore further the how subjective decision-making differs from objective we should return to the subjective cases of the two examples, above: the picture I supposedly painted a few minutes ago and my own private research which is not directly in the field of my job. Next we should modify Figure 5 to exclude the pull activity. See Figure 9 which shows the three general subjective activities and their corresponding primary feelings. We should also recall (see Figure 4) that the sectors or phases of activity operate in a cycle. The other main change is the feedback process as shown in Figure 8. This creates an intensity of interaction between the decision-maker and the project.
Figure 9. The three general subjective activities and corresponding primary feelings and responses
Consider, first, the difference between proposition and perception as activities, but now with the emphasis on continuous interaction between the decision-maker and the project. For the painter who is about to sketch a landscape, what issues affect the propositions of what he or she might do? There are various basic requirements: a box of paints and brushes, a canvas or board on which to paint, a view, a convenient spot which is not too windy or wet, freedom from interference. For all of these the primary feeling is fear. What issues affect the perceptions of the painter? A multitude of anxieties may arise. Could I paint this view? Do I like the look of the place? Do I know any of the people living there? What do they do and how would I like to be in their situations? Would I be happy living amongst them? For the researcher there are similar differentiations. What should he or she propose to study? What published research can be found? Is there data available? If not, can it be accessed? What or whom might the research affect? These are different from and must be considered before perception issues such as the following. How should I proceed? Would I be able to contribute to this area of research? Would I enjoy spending a considerable amount of my spare time studying in this field? Would I be happy working with the people already there? Would I accept their cultural norms? It is apparent from both illustrations that the proposition issues are considered first. Sourcing the required materials, location, subject matter, etc. is a precondition for development. Once done, one can progress to dealing with perception issues. In all cases the description or focus is less on the general activity and more on what it means to the decision-maker. In particular, the demands that the perception activities make on the decision-maker are often described as psychological. Similar corresponding terms for the proposition and push activities are not as obvious. Following Principle 2, suggested above in the introduction, natural words should exist that describe the other two aspects. It is also important to understand that the following should hold:
Principle 3: Different aspects of a particular dynamic will be described by words that are similar to each other, with the differences in the words specific to the differences in the concept.
If this were not so the terms would not appear natural and this contradicts the idea of intelligent cultural development over many generations. We need an appropriate term to describe the broadly material things which are required as a base before proceeding to the psychological stage, as described in the painting and research examples above. Psyche is the Greek word for soul and comes from its usage in the New Testament of the Bible. Its usage there is in the context of distinctions between body, soul and spirit. The corresponding Greek words are soma, psyche and pneuma. Hence the term corresponding to psychological to describe the category of material things which determine the decision possessors' propositions about a project should be somatological. To be consistent, and following Principle 3, the corresponding word for push activities should be pneumatological. Currently the popular usage of soma is only in the context of a psycho-somatic illness, i.e. a psychological problem which manifests itself with physical symptoms. Likewise pneuma is usually used in the context of air or wind as in pneumatic. Is it justifiable to adopt terminology from a religious context and adapt it for management? In fact it is imperative. The religious aspect has produced a tried and tested subjective decision-making system where the project is generally oneself. See Figure 10.
POSSESSOR/ PARTICIPANT
SELF
Figure 10. Influences when the project is oneself
It is necessary to consider the usage of these terms. The soma, the psyche and the pneuma correspond to three different aspects of the human being. Somatic, psychic and pneumatic are adjectives corresponding to these aspects, for example "he considered the question on the somatic level". Somatical, psychical and pneumatical are adjectives related to these, just as mental corresponds to the mind, for example "she took a psychical approach to the problem". Somatically, psychically and pneumatically are adjectives describing ways of operating, similar to mentally, for example "the child seemed to be pneumatically very alert". Likewise there are the sciences of somatology, psychology and pneumatology, and terms relating to following the logic of these sciences: somatologically, psychologically and pneumatologically.6 6
The Oxford English Dictionary (Simpson et al, 1989) gives references to instances where many of these terms have been used. Recently soma has even been used as a verb (Hillman, 1989, p.117). In the development of this system much consideration was given to alternative sets of phrases so as to avoid the use of soma, psyche and pneuma which, we have found, do not find ready acceptance. Marketing uses a corresponding set: cognitive, affective and conative, but this seems less transferable into other disciplines. We would suggest that there is a need for more familiarity with the concepts represented by soma, psyche and pneuma, and that, as this develops, the terms will
Let us now apply these terms to the painting illustration introduced above. The painter first deals with the somatic aspects : preparation, getting paints and brushes, finding a safe spot, etc. These are the broadly physical aspects which limit any proposition of how to plan the painting. If the painter is hungry, or there is an angry farmer accusing the painter of trespass, or the painter is urgently needed at home, then the painting cannot proceed. These aspects are tangible, but more than just physical in the narrow sense. The somatic level refers to the broad set of external obstacles somewhat akin to material constraints which must be overcome or incorporated before proceeding to the "real" preparation for painting. And yet this aspect is very much part of the planning process. They affect the proposition phase. If there is a storm outside, then you will be confined indoors. If you have promised your family to take them to the mountains, then the painting is not likely to be of a sandy beach. If you cannot afford coloured paints, then you will have to make do with pencil, and so on. A more colloquial description would be that the focus at this level is on what we have, i.e. the materials, talents, opportunities, etc. All one's perception issues are considered at the psychic level, as described above. If the painting is for a commission, then I should consider what the client wants. If I hope to sell it, then I had better keep it within people's normal expectations of what a painting should look like: rectangular, not too small or too big, and so on. And, of course, if I hate the view, I am not going to paint a nice painting. I need to build sufficient psychic energy to carry me through the actual putting of the paint on the canvas. Only when I have completed the requirements of that level can I proceed. Working through these activities is a developmental process. The completion of each level allows one to move onwards. A more colloquial description, corresponding to "what we have" for the somatic level, would be that the focus at the psychic level will have to consider what we should do, i.e. the choices, design alternatives, etc. which, of course, are dependent on our perceptions of the task. At the point when one is happy with the planning process, one moves into doing the painting. Of course, in pure physical terms, the changeover point may not have been clear-cut. As part of planning one may have produced sketches or drafts. However, there comes a point when one feels, psychically, that it is time to do it, that any further delay is procrastination. The final phase is when I bring my whole being into play. I push myself to produce the best painting I can do. The painting becomes a reflection of my spirit or being in a broad sense: my pneuma. The colloquial description of the focus at the pneumatic level will bring the focus onto what we are, i.e. the inner being, the core energies, etc. which we depend on as we push to complete the task. If I feel strong and good this will become evident in the work. However, I am also very likely to show resentment if someone comes along and interferes with me just when I have some momentum going. If I love the object of the painting: the view, the people, whatever, this will come across. If it is successful artistically it may reflect or contain some aspect of my being which will be apparent to others. After the basic painting session is complete, there is the completion process of framing it, protecting it from damage as it dries, and hopefully delivering it to a client. Maybe there will follow a become more accepted. See Kant (1987, p. 351-3) for a discussion of the differences between pneumatology and psychology.
period of observing it, making small modifications, noting points for improvement for the future. All this is part of pushing the painting to a conclusion. The pneumatic aspect is very clearly the highest level, and it is undertaken only when a base has been provided by the somatic and psychic levels beneath it. Thus we can conclude about the general subjective phases of activity that they provide three primary levels of development: somatic, psychic and pneumatic; the emphasis is on, first, dealing with what we have, then considering what we feel we can do, and, finally, working from the basis of who or what we are, as shown in Figure 11.
Axiom 11: With subjective decision-making the phases correspond to levels of a development process.
Figure 11. The three primary levels of development and their focus
6.
Usages of the triadic concept of development
The idea for basing the development concepts on the somatic, psychic and pneumatic came from the association of subjective perception activities with the psychological. In fact there were many similar triads to choose from. The use of "body, soul and spirit" was rejected because it had religious associations where it was important to be as general as possible. Also "body" is usually understood to mean the physical body, and this would be too specific. The use of "mind" instead of "soul" was a possibility, except that "mind" is too general; the mind should be used at all three levels of development. Instances of triads are many and varied. In the New Testament (Jones, 1968) 1 Corinthians 13:13, faith, hope and love (see Figure 9) are presented as three things that last, the greatest of these being love. The philosopher Hegel's writings were based on triads. (Inwood, 1983, pp. 263, 294) He also supported the idea that stages exist in nature. (1983, p.318) Hegel developed the term dialectic to explain the triadic development. (1983, p.294) His ideas tend to concur with the concept of development through somatic, psychic and pneumatic phases. He believed that mankind is in a process of rising to God, the converse of God descending to mankind which is the process whereby the world is generated. (1983, p.251) His work became contentious partly because it is so confusingly written, but also because he tried to explain everything in nature including theology and metaphysics. (1983, p.522) He was trying to discover the underlying spirit governing everything. To understand Hegel one should examine the differences between him and Feuerbach (Feuerbach, 1966; Kamenka, 1970; Wartofsky, 1977) who was Hegel's pupil, then disciple and finally critic. Hegel was speculative and abstract (Kamenka, 1970, p.ix) whereas Feuerbach focused on the concrete, sense perception and the individual. (Feuerbach, 1966, p.ix) Hegel's theology was pantheistic (Kamenka, 1970, p.80) while Feuerbach's related more to human experience. (Feuerbach, 1966, p.60) In the language of this article, Hegel would have said that the pneumatic was the most important and Feuerbach would have wanted a greater emphasis on the psychic; in his later writings (Wartofsky, 1977, Chapter XII) Feuerbach moved toward the somatic. Karl Marx based his ideas on Hegel's dialectic, then followed Feuerbach in rejecting Hegel and finally rejected Feuerbach for not going far enough. The ultimate summary of their opposing views is expressed by Marx who turned Hegel "right side up again" to give first priority to the somatic, the "rational kernel in the mystical shell". (Marx, 1906, p.2) The effort that they and other dialectic philosophers expended to understand the triadic system is something to marvel at. It seems as if they were trying to explain the workings of a car's engine from inside it as they went from thesis to antithesis to synthesis. Looking at it, as it were from outside the engine, it seems quite clear that decisions, in order to be balanced, normally should allow for four types of activity or phases and, under developmental circumstances, these four collapse to three.
A common use of the triadic idea in management is in systems development. Simon (1977) essentially had three phases: Intelligence, Design and Choice. This structure is used by Turban (1990) in building Decision Support and Expert Systems using mathematical models ; modelling is carried out in the Intelligence Phase, construction of the system during the Design Phase, and solution of the model during the Choice Phase. A similar "systems" approach to problem solving is used by O'Brien (1993) in the construction of Management Information Systems. Its phases are: Understand the Problem or Opportunity, Develop a Solution, and Implement a Solution. The terms most commonly used in the context of systems development are: Analysis, Design and Implementation. (Whitten et al, 1989) Although authors may develop their ideas by breaking some phases up or by including an extra minor phase, the general structure usually follows the pattern described in Figure 11. The triadic structure corresponding to the somatic, psychic and pneumatic appears as cognition (occasionally belief), affect, and behaviour (occasionally intention) in consumer research. (See Hirschman, Holbrook et al, 1987; 1982a; 1982b.) In (1982a) they refer to the source of this structure as Scott et al (1979) where it was described as cognition or knowing, emotion or feeling, and conation or willing. Scott et al claim incorrectly and without reference that this structure comes from Plato. The terms cognitive, affective and conative also appear in advertising. Barry and Howard (1990) attribute it to Lavidge and Steiner (1961) who refer to it as a classic psychological model. In fact it was Hamilton who first popularised the usage of the terms and credits (1877, Vol. 1, p.186) Cudworth (1838) as the first to use the term conative. Most significantly Hamilton (1877, Vol. 2, Lecture 41, pp. 414-430) got the ideas from Kant's Critique of Judgement (1987, lxxxvii, pp. 15-18) which was published first in 1790; indeed Hamilton specifically refutes the link to Plato. The German philosophers of the time, apparently, were happy about the existence of the knowing and willing dimensions. Kant's contribution was to prove the existence of an intermediate feeling dimension. It seems unfortunate that modern consumer behaviour and advertising researchers did not have the benefit of making the link back to the German school of psychology which was influenced by, and probably also influenced, Kant (1877, Vol. 2, p.416). Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956; 1964) divided educational objectives into cognitive, affective and psychomotor. Although they use the terms cognitive and affective their classification is not consistent with the ideas that derive from Kant. Indeed they show little awareness of this work (1964, p.7).
7.
Conclusion
The purpose of this article was to use an analytical approach to discover the structure of qualitative decision making and justify it using a mixture of discussion and reference to illustrations which demonstrate the existence of this structure. This research grew out an interest in Operations Research /
Management Science, mathematical modelling, marketing, multi criteria decision making and a wish to understand the processes of the mind. A belief that the fundamental structure of thinking was simple led to the idea that, in every decision, a person focuses on the problem by carrying out a sweeping search using a balance mechanism. The first issue relates to uncertainty about what to do; if high, then planning; if low, then putting. The second issue is about where is the balance of one's dependency in the decision; if more on oneself, then solve the problem in your own place or situation; if on others, then bring it to other people. This provided a base for dividing the search area into four sectors which also correspond to phases of decision: Proposition, Perception, Pull and Push. A substructure for decisions grew out of the situation where the focus of the decision was its owner, in which case the Pull activity loses its energy. This led to the development concept and the existence of three levels : the somatic, the psychic and the pneumatic. The importance of development decision making is apparent from the interest in it shown by many different and unconnected groups from philosophers to systems practitioners. The triadic system tends to overshadow its parent. The third decision making issue relates to the nature of the decision-maker's involvement in the decision. Subjective involvement leads to the development focus. According to Principle 3 the other aspect of this dynamic needs to be described by a similar word which also emphasises the differences in the concept between the triadic and the parent system. The development system was seen to be different to the parent system in that it became more concerned with personality aspects which influence one's relating to one's own personal needs and values in one's inner world. The parent system was characterised more by the basics of discovering and resolving imbalances between planning and putting, place and people. So, its distinguishing feature is that it is more about the motivations involved in one's interaction with the outside world, adjusting the world to oneself and oneself to it. This is in keeping with the idea that the possessor of the decision is on the outside. The decision participant must be careful to not lose touch with the possessor, be constantly aware of the objectively based intentions of the project, and do everything possible to avoid bringing personal bias into decision-making judgements. The key aspect is balance and using the four general phases of activity: proposition, perception, pull and push as instruments to help maintain that balance. Frequently, when a new situation is being considered, these will be phases in a cycle; but, most fundamentally, the following is true.
Axiom 12: With objective decision-making the activities and phases are parts of an adjustment process.
Audi, R. (1981), "Inductive-Nomological Explanations and Psychological Laws", Theory and Decision 13, 229-249.
Barry, T. and Howard, D. (1990), "A Review and Critique of the Hierarchy of Effects in Advertising", International Journal of Advertising, 9, 121-135.
Bloom, B. (Ed.) (1956), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives - Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, London: Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd.
Bloom, B., Krathwohl, D. and Masia, B. (1964), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives - Handbook II: Affective Domain, New York: David McKay Company, Inc.
Bonoma, T. (1985), The Marketing Edge, New York: The Free Press.
Cudworth, R. (1838), A Treatise on Free Will, London: British Museum.
Feuerbach, L. (1966), Principles of the Philosophy of the Future, Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.
Goold, M. and Campbell, A. (1987), Strategies and Styles: The Role of the Centre in Managing Diversified Corporations, The London Business School Centre for Business Strategy Series, Basil Blackwell.
Hamilton, W. (1877), Lectures on Metaphysics, Vols. 1 and 2, 6th Ed., in Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic, Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons.
Hillman, J. (1989), The Blue Fire, London: Routledge.
Hirschman, E. and Holbrook, M. (1982a), " Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Proposition", Journal of Marketing, (Summer) 46, 92-101.
Holbrook, M. and Hirschman, E. (1982b), "The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun", Journal of Consumer Research, (September) 9, 132-140.
Holbrook, M. and Batra, R. (1987), "Assessing the Role of Emotions as Mediators of Consumer Responses to Advertising", Journal of Consumer Research, (December) 14, 404-420.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture's Consequences, London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Inwood, M. (1983), Hegel, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Jones, A. (1968), The Jerusalem Bible, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.
Kamenka, E. (1970), The Philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Kant, I. (1987), Critique of Judgement, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Kay, J. (1993), Foundations of Corporate Success: How Business Strategies Add Value, Oxford University Press.
Lavidge, R. and Steiner, G. (1961), "A Model For Predictive Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness", Journal of Marketing, (October) 59-62.
Marsh, P., Barwise, P., Thomas, K. and Wensley, R. (1988), Managing Strategic Investment Decisions in Large Diversified Companies, The Centre for Business Strategy Report Series, London Business School.
Marx, K. (1906), in Engels, F. Capital, Vol. 1, ed., Moore and Aveling, tr., Chicago: Charles Kerr.
O'Brien, J.A. (1993), Management Information Systems - A Managerial End User Perspective, Homewood, IL , IRWIN.
Scott, E. (1970), The Philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Scott, W., Osgood, D. and Peterson, C. (1979), Cognitive Structure: Theory and Measurement of Individual Differences, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Simon, H. (1977), The New Science of Management Decisions, Rev. ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Simpson, J.A., and Weiner, E.S.C., (1989), The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research (Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques), London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Turban, E. (1990), Decision Support and Expert Systems: Management Support Systems, New York: 2nd Ed. Macmillan Publishing Company.
Wartofsky, M. (1977), Feuerbach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whitten, J., Bentley, L., and Barlow, V. (1989), Systems Analysis and Design Methods, 2nd Ed., Homewood, IL.: IRWIN.
