Research overview. My work sits at the intersection of behavioral strategy, entrepreneurship, and business ethics, with a central focus on decision-making under radical uncertainty. In many strategic settings, the challenge is not imperfect prediction but the absence of reliable predictive structure: probabilities cannot be estimated, and cues are contested or missing. I argue that in such environments, actors often replace epistemic, truth-seeking reasoning with eristic reasoning—forms of argumentation oriented toward securing commitment, reducing anxiety, and producing a felt sense of direction.
This shift can be functional because it coordinates action and stabilizes collective belief, but it is also dangerous: eristic justification can create pseudo-legitimacy, amplify power asymmetries, and trigger moral–political capture. My research specifies when eristics help organizations explore and act—and when governance, deliberation, and accountability mechanisms are needed to preserve judgment and ethical scrutiny.
I theorize eristic reasoning as a motivational substitute for forecasting: argumentation that prioritizes commitment and action over truth-tracking when cues are weak. I examine how narratives, rituals, and influence tactics create conviction and coordination—often without improving accuracy.
I study how organizations justify contested choices and manage moral concerns under ambiguity. I show how legitimacy can be manufactured through persuasive performance, yet also how this process can degrade ethical judgment and entrench power.
I analyze how uncertainty shapes entrepreneurial and innovation choices, especially when evaluators cannot confidently rank alternatives. I link motivational dynamics to selection decisions, persistence, and post-hoc justification.
Keywords:
Uncertainty; motivated reasoning; argumentation; legitimation; business ethics; entrepreneurship; radical innovation; behavioral strategy.