IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nup/jrmdke/v3y2015i3p381-408.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Use of the Evidence from the Behavioral Sciences in the Organizational Decision-Making Process

Author

Listed:
  • Bogdan MINJINA

    (Psychosociology Center, Ministry of Internal Affairs)

Abstract

The important managerial decision-making and the development of policies, strategies, internal normative acts and procedures must be solid grounded for efficient achieving of their objectives. To this end, the evidence-based approach uses various types of evidence, a leading role having those scientific, and the critical thinking. The evidence from behavioral sciences is especially important when the decisions objectives involve behavioral elements. They also help to ensure the rationality of any decision-making process. The concern for the use of behavioral sciences research in the decision-making preceded the occurrence of evidence-based approach. The increased knowledge fund of organizations, the access to the best practices and to the relevant scientific research findings represent only the initial stages of the evidence-based approach implementation and functioning. The ensuring of their effective use calls for special skills training among staff, the creation of tools and organizational mechanisms and of a facilitating organizational culture. This paper argues the need to integrate two approaches that promote the decision-making based on scientific evidence, the evidence-based approach and the use of behavioral and social sciences in the decision-making, to potentiate the contribution of the behavioral sciences to the increasing of the decision-making efficiency. The efforts made in this paper had overall objective to prepare and facilitate the use of research evidence provided by behavioral sciences in the organizational decision-making process by presenting the main concepts and knowledge in the field and by proposing an outline procedure specifically developed.

Suggested Citation

  • Bogdan MINJINA, 2015. "The Use of the Evidence from the Behavioral Sciences in the Organizational Decision-Making Process," Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, College of Management, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, vol. 3(3), pages 381-408, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:nup:jrmdke:v:3:y:2015:i:3:p:381-408
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.managementdynamics.ro/index.php/journal/article/download/139/88
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.managementdynamics.ro/index.php/journal/article/view/139/88
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Madhavan, Ravi & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2011. "Evidence-Based Management in "Macro" Areas: The Case of Strategic Management," Working Papers 11-0105, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    2. René van Bavel & Benedikt Herrmann & Gabriele Esposito & Antonios Proestakis, 2013. "Applying Behavioural Science to EU Policy-Making," JRC Research Reports JRC83284, Joint Research Centre.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patrizia GAZZOLA & Massimo RATTI & Stefano AMELIO, 2017. "CSR and Sustainability Report for Nonprofit Organizations. An Italian Best Practice," Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, College of Management, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, vol. 5(3), pages 355-376, September.

    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. René van Bavel & Nuria Rodríguez-Priego, 2016. "Nudging Online Security Behaviour with Warning Messages: Results from an Online Experiment," JRC Research Reports JRC103223, Joint Research Centre.
    2. McGowan, Féidhlim, 2018. "The roaming regulation and the case for applying behavioural industrial organisation to EU competition policy," Papers WP598, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    3. Peter Lunn, 2015. "Are Consumer Decision-Making Phenomena a Fourth Market Failure?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 315-330, September.
    4. LL. M. Fabrizio Esposito, 2017. "A Dismal Reality: Behavioural Analysis and Consumer Policy," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 193-216, June.
    5. Kene Boun My & Nicolas Lampach & Mathieu Lefebvre, 2016. "Effects of gain-loss frames on social preferences," Working Papers of BETA 2016-21, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    6. Regan, Mark & Keane, Claire & Walsh, John R, 2018. "Using behavioural experiments to pre-test policy," Papers BP2019/2, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    7. Y. Gómez & V. Martínez-Molés & J. Vila, 2016. "Spanish regulation for labeling of financial products: a behavioral-experimental analysis," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(3), pages 355-378, December.
    8. Cristiano Codagnone & Giuseppe Alessandro Veltri & Francesco Bogliacino & Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva & George Gaskell & Andriy Ivchenko & Pietro Ortoleva & Francesco Mureddu, 2016. "Labels as nudges? An experimental study of car eco-labels," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(3), pages 403-432, December.
    9. Shara Monteleone & Rene van Bavel & Nuria Rodríguez-Priego & Gabriele Esposito, 2015. "Nudges to Privacy Behaviour: Exploring Alternative Approaches to EU Data Protection Regulation," JRC Research Reports JRC96695, Joint Research Centre.
    10. Jennifer Petkovic & Vivian Welch & Marie Helena Jacob & Manosila Yoganathan & Ana Patricia Ayala & Heather Cunningham & Peter Tugwell, 2018. "Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-52.

    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:nup:jrmdke:v:3:y:2015:i:3:p:381-408. 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: Cristian-Mihai VIDU (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fmsnsro.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.