Evaluation of Decision Effectiveness Over Time

Open access

Abstract

In this paper, the results of my research are presented that was carried out on a large sample to investigate how people look back at their previous business decisions. After a short literature overview, considering the role of time, the paper deals with the primary research: how people judge their decisions in the short term and in the long run, that is, how confident they are that the right one was chosen applying the available knowledge of facts and conditions connected with or relevant to their situation. Using statistical methods, comparisons were made, for example, based on the respondents’ gender, so it turns out whether gender has an influence on self-confidence or on exactness of judgement. Does the position, that is, the rank matter? Can it be assumed that the farther one gets up the corporate ladder, the more certainty can be observed about their decisions? And what about educational level? Does it influence judgement in a decision? Those who do not regret their decisions after a while, that is, after the original decisions were made, while being in possession of the information available later, can be more successful in business because they made the best decision. Trying to identify such characteristics or factors can be an advantage in the business life.

Barabási, A-L. (2002). Linked: The New Science of Networks. Perseus Books Group

Kaufmann, A. (1968). The Science of Decision-Making: An Introduction to Praxeology. New York, McGraw-Hill

Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos (1979): Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, Vol 47, No 2. pp. 263-292.

Kolnhofer-Derecskei, A. (2017). How would you decide on behalf of your friend? Management, Enterprise and Benchmarking (MEB) “Global challenges, local answers”, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 195-204.

Loewenstein, G. & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 107, Issue 2

Milgram, S. (1967). The Small-World Problem. Psychology Today, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 61-67.

Nobelprize.org – The Official Web Site of the Nobel Prize. [Accessed 20.04.2018] Available from Internet: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/

Read, D. & Roelofsma, P. H. M. P. (2003). Subadditive versus Hyperbolic Discounting: A Comparison of Choice and Matching. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 91, Issue 2

Ricardo, D. (1817). On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London, John Murray, Albemarle-Street. [Accessed 07.11.2018] Available from Internet: https://books.google.hu/books?id=cUBKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR1&hl=hu&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

Samuelson, P. (1937). A Note on Measurement of Utility. Review of Economic Studies, vol. 4, issue 2, pp. 155–161.

Sajtos L. & Mitev A. (2007). SPSS kutatási és adatelemzési kézikönyv. Alinea Kiadó, Budapest

Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1st edition.

Smith, A. (2007). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edited by S. M. Soares. MetaLibri Digital Library, 29th May 2007

Sopher, B. & Sheth, A. (2006). A Deeper Look at Hyperbolic Discounting. Theory and Decision. Vol. 60, Number 2-3, Springer

Thaler, R. H. (2016). Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics. W. W. Norton & Company; 1st edition

Thaler, R. H. & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save More Tomorrow™: Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving. Journal of Political Economy 112, no. S1

Tóth, M. & Chytilek, R. (2018). Fast, frugal and correct? An experimental study on the influence of time scarcity and quantity of information on the voter decision making process. Public Choice. Vol. 177, issue 1-2, pp. 67-86.

Journal Information

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 80 80 21
PDF Downloads 54 54 13