Factors Influencing Decision Quality: An Empirical Study on Managers in Public Institutions in Jordan

Factors Influencing Decision Quality: An Empirical Study on Managers in Public Institutions in Jordan

Riad Ahmad Mohammed Abazeed

Contact

α Al al-Bayt University

Factors Influencing Decision Quality: An Empirical Study on Managers in Public Institutions in Jordan

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

Z72B2

Factors Influencing Decision Quality: An Empirical Study on Managers in Public Institutions in Jordan Banner

AI TAKEAWAY

Connecting with the Eternal Ground

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore factors influencing decision quality made in public institutions in Jordan. On the basis of the literature, four factors were determined as factors associated to decision quality; moral intensity, information quality, group cohesiveness and decision experience. Each factor along with decision quality was assessed using six indicators adopted from previous studies. A questionnaire was developed and utilized in this study to collect data. The population of the study comprised managers, assistant managers and authorized employees to participate in decision making in 15 public institutions in Irbid governorate in Jordan. The total number of population was 210 participants, all of them included in the study. A total of 210questionnaires were distributed to the participants and 179 were returned complete with a response rate of 85.23%. Using SPSS and Amos to analyze the data, the results accepted the hypotheses that moral intensity, information quality, group cohesiveness and decision experience were significantly and positively have an influence on decision quality.

References

34 Cites in Article

Reference Format

M Abumandil,S Hassan (2016). Information quality and decision-making effectiveness: A study of banks in Palestine.
Mesut Akdere (2011). An analysis of decision-making process in organizations: Implications for quality management and systematic practice.
N Ashill,D Jobber (2013). The effects of experience on managerial decision-making uncertainty.
T Barnett (2001). Dimensions of moral intensity and ethical decision making: An empirical study.
Pierre Berthon,Michael Ewing,Li Hah (2005). Captivating company: dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding.
D Carlson,K Kacmar,L Wadsworth (2002). The impact of moral intensity dimensions on ethical decision making: Assessing the relevance of orientation.
M Carpenter,J Westphal (2001). THE STRATEGIC CONTEXT OF EXTERNAL NETWORK TIES: EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF DIRECTOR APPOINTMENTS ON BOARD INVOLVEMENT IN STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING..
M Cohen,J Etner,M Jeleva (2008). Dynamic decision making when risk perception depends on past experience.
James Courtney (2001). Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organizations: toward a new decision-making paradigm for DSS.
C Dietrich (2012). Decision making: Factors that influence decision making, heuristics used, and decision outcomes.
R Donelan,S Walker,S Salek (2015). Factors influencing quality decision making: regulatory and pharmaceutical industry perspectives.
Lata Dyaram,T Kamalanabhan (2005). Unearthed: The Other Side of Group Cohesiveness.
S Elbanna,I Thanos,M Colak (2014). An exploratory study of the determinants of the quality of strategic decision implementation in Turkish industrial firms.
Bernhard Frey (2000). The Impact of Moral Intensity on Decision Making in a Business Context.
Johny Ghattas,Pnina Soffer,Mor Peleg (2014). Improving business process decision making based on past experience.
R Hastie,R Dawes (2010). Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of judgment.
T Jones (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model.
Ying-Feng Kuo,Chi-Ming Wu,Wei-Jaw Deng (2009). The relationships among service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services.
Terry Loe,Linda Ferrell,Phylis Mansfield (2000). A Review of Empirical Studies Assessing Ethical Decision Making in Business.
F Lunenburg (2010). The decision making process.
F Lunenburg (2011). Decision making in organizations.
Brian Mullen,Tara Anthony,Eduardo Salas,James Driskell (1994). Group Cohesiveness and Quality of Decision Making.
Oriana Negulescu,Elena Doval (2014). The Quality of Decision Making Process Related to Organizations’ Effectiveness.
J Paolillo,S Vitell (2002). An empirical investigation of the influence of selected personal, organizational and moral intensity factors on ethical decision making.
L Pitt,D Nel (1990). The effects of group cohesiveness on decision performance in a simulated marketing environment.
Tom Postmes,Russell Spears,Sezgin Cihangir (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms..
Lotte Scholten,Daan Van Knippenberg,Bernard Nijstad,Carsten De Dreu (2007). Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality.
L Scholten,D Van Knippenberg,B Nijstad,C De Dreu (2007). Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality.
H Simon (1944). Decision-making and administrative organization.
Anusorn Singhapakdi,Scott Vitell,Kenneth Kraft (1996). Moral intensity and ethical decision-making of marketing professionals.
Richard Spreng,Robert Mackoy (1996). An empirical examination of a model of perceived service quality and satisfaction.
Breda Sweeney,Fiona Costello (2009). Moral Intensity and Ethical Decision-making: An Empirical Examination of Undergraduate Accounting and Business Students.
Wouter Van Riel,Jeroen Langeveld,Paulien Herder,François Clemens (2016). The influence of information quality on decision-making for networked infrastructure management.
Zhilin Yang,Robin Peterson (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of switching costs.

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Riad Ahmad Mohammed Abazeed. 2019. \u201cFactors Influencing Decision Quality: An Empirical Study on Managers in Public Institutions in Jordan\u201d. Global Journal of Management and Business Research - A: Administration & Management GJMBR-A Volume 19 (GJMBR Volume 19 Issue A1): .

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

Download Article

GJMBR Volume 19 Issue A1
Pg. 1- 8

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJMBR

Print ISSN 0975-5853

e-ISSN 2249-4588

Keywords

Not Found

Classification

GJMBR-A Classification: JEL Code: M10

Submission ReceivedDecember 9, 2018
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted January 3, 2019
Published January 15, 2019

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

February 9, 2019

Language

Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Score: 101

Country: Jordan

Subject: Global Journal of Management and Business Research - A: Administration & Management

Authors: Riad Ahmad Mohammed Abazeed (PhD/Dr. count: 0)

View Count (all-time): 169

Total Views (Real + Logic): 2796

Total Downloads (simulated): 1346

Publish Date: 2019 02, Sat

Monthly Totals (Real + Logic):

Month 1: 21 views
Month 2: 22 views
Month 3: 48 views
Month 4: 51 views
Month 5: 62 views
Month 6: 30 views
Month 7: 36 views
Month 8: 30 views
Month 9: 41 views
Month 10: 31 views
Month 11: 37 views
Month 12: 33 views
Month 13: 29 views
Month 14: 37 views
Month 15: 20 views
Month 16: 26 views
Month 17: 39 views
Month 18: 28 views
Month 19: 18 views
Month 20: 39 views
Month 21: 31 views
Month 22: 22 views
Month 23: 36 views
Month 24: 29 views
Month 25: 17 views
Month 26: 35 views
Month 27: 38 views
Month 28: 32 views
Month 29: 35 views
Month 30: 16 views
Month 31: 16 views
Month 32: 22 views
Month 33: 24 views
Month 34: 37 views
Month 35: 28 views
Month 36: 28 views
Month 37: 29 views
Month 38: 35 views
Month 39: 32 views
Month 40: 25 views
Month 41: 36 views
Month 42: 30 views
Month 43: 33 views
Month 44: 17 views
Month 45: 37 views
Month 46: 13 views
Month 47: 18 views
Month 48: 24 views
Month 49: 42 views
Month 50: 19 views
Month 51: 46 views
Month 52: 23 views
Month 53: 48 views
Month 54: 34 views
Month 55: 15 views
Month 56: 35 views
Month 57: 20 views
Month 58: 34 views
Month 59: 28 views
Month 60: 33 views
Month 61: 30 views
Month 62: 44 views
Month 63: 16 views
Month 64: 37 views
Month 65: 27 views
Month 66: 30 views
Month 67: 35 views
Month 68: 32 views
Month 69: 28 views
Month 70: 26 views
Month 71: 25 views
Month 72: 42 views
Month 73: 35 views
Month 74: 26 views
Month 75: 35 views
Month 76: 19 views
Month 77: 40 views
Month 78: 29 views
Month 79: 49 views
Month 80: 27 views
Month 81: 24 views
Month 82: 22 views
Month 83: 33 views
Month 84: 30 views
Month 85: 41 views
Month 86: 52 views

Total Views: 2796

Total Downloads: 1346

2026 Trends

Published Article

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]