IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zag/zirebs/v21y2018i1p37-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organisational Decision-Making and Academic Institutions: Increasing Complexity of Processes, Settings and Actors

Author

Listed:
  • Ivana Ilijašić Veršić

    (CESSDA ERIC, Bergen, Norway)

Abstract

Changes in understanding and interpretation of decision-making processes have shed more light on complex interplay given the different settings, and different actors. The limitations in human decision-making and their significance and long-term implications on organizational management or policy making inspired a large body of evidence and research. Exploration of decision-making processes spans over decades, and is closely connected to the role of power; the amount of power in organizations is usually joined by the knowledge and prior experience, which together play a significant role in decision-making process, as well in selection of candidates for the job. However, there is an evident void concerning publications on decision-making processes in academic institutions, and it rapidly becomes the focus of interest due to a specific opposition contained in its core; positions of high level administrators are held by the university professors with no mandatory previous experience and/or knowledge in organisational management. JEL Classification: D87, D89, D91

Suggested Citation

  • Ivana Ilijašić Veršić, 2018. "Organisational Decision-Making and Academic Institutions: Increasing Complexity of Processes, Settings and Actors," Zagreb International Review of Economics and Business, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 21(1), pages 37-46, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:zag:zirebs:v:21:y:2018:i:1:p:37-46
    DOI: 10.2478/zireb-2018-0003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=295779
    Download Restriction: Abstract only available on-line
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/zireb-2018-0003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hervé Laroche, 1995. "From Decision to Action in Organizations: Decision-Making as a Social Representation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 62-75, February.
    2. Richard M. Cyert & Herbert A. Simon & Donald B. Trow, 1956. "Observation of a Business Decision," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29, pages 237-237.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mario GRAZIANO & Daniele SCHILIRÒ, 2011. "Rationality And Choices In Economics: Behavioral And Evolutionary Approaches," Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Fields, ASERS Publishing, vol. 2(2), pages 182-195.
    2. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    3. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    4. Liu, Hui-hui & Song, Yao-yao & Liu, Xiao-xiao & Yang, Guo-liang, 2020. "Aggregating the DEA prospect cross-efficiency with an application to state key laboratories in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    5. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    6. André Lapied & Thomas Rongiconi, 2013. "Ambiguity as a Source of Temptation: Modeling Unstable Beliefs," Working Papers halshs-00797631, HAL.
    7. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    8. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    9. Iñigo Iturbe-Ormaetxe & Giovanni Ponti & Josefa Tomás, 2016. "Myopic Loss Aversion under Ambiguity and Gender Effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Zimper, Alexander, 2012. "Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 610-628.
    11. Courgeau, Daniel, 2012. "Probability and social science : methodologial relationships between the two approaches ?," MPRA Paper 43102, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. S. Larsson & G. R. Chesley, 1986. "An analysis of the auditor's uncertainty about probabilities," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 259-282, March.
    13. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    14. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    15. Vadym Lepetyuk & Christian A. Stoltenberg, 2012. "Reconciling consumption inequality with income inequality," Working Papers. Serie AD 2012-19, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    16. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    17. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2014. "Optimism And Pessimism In Games," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55(2), pages 483-505, May.
    18. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    19. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    20. Andries, Marianne & Bianchi, Milo & Huynh, Karen & Pouget, Sébastien, 2024. "Return Predictability, Expectations, and Investment: Experimental Evidence," TSE Working Papers 1561, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    decision-making; academic institutions; organisations;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D87 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Neuroeconomics
    • D89 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Other
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zag:zirebs:v:21:y:2018:i:1:p:37-46. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jurica Šimurina (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fefzghr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.