IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v11y2024i1d10.1057_s41599-024-03664-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Generation mechanism of behavioral risk for organizational decision-makers in financial institutions: organizational and human errors

Author

Listed:
  • Lijun Liang

    (Beijing Information Science and Technology University(BISTU))

  • Tongxin Dai

    (Hebei University)

  • Mengwan Zhang

    (Beijing Forestry University)

Abstract

This study investigates the mechanism behind the generation of behavioral risk among decision-makers in financial institutions. We start by examining the general mechanism of organizational decision-making behavior, then analyse organizational errors and human errors in the decision-making process, and subsequently define the connotations and types of organizational decision-makers’ behavioral risk. The study also identifies the necessary conditions for the emergence of decision-making behavioral risk. We construct a model to analyse the behavioral risk of decision-makers in financial institutions. We also develop motivation and utility functions for organizational decision-makers’ behavior, examine the relationship between factors in the utility function, and explore how organizational decision-makers adjust their behavior in various situations to maximize utility. The paper also analyses a case study involving the China Everbright Group (CEG). The study revealed the following: ① The conditions for the occurrence of organizational decision-makers’ behavioral risk in financial institutions mainly stem from the conflict between organizational interests and decision-makers’ interests, the failure of organizational contextual constraints, and the lack of organizational decision-making auditing and feedback mechanisms. ② Organizational decision-makers tend to exhibit inappropriate decision-making behaviors when they overestimate their own abilities in comparison to the benefits they expect. ③ Financial institutions should avoid organizational errors to reduce the likelihood of behavioral risk by increasing the cost of organizational decision-makers’ behavior. Our study proposes measures to mitigate the risk of inappropriate behavior by financial institutions through scientific decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Lijun Liang & Tongxin Dai & Mengwan Zhang, 2024. "Generation mechanism of behavioral risk for organizational decision-makers in financial institutions: organizational and human errors," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03664-4
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03664-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-024-03664-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-024-03664-4?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. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    2. Resul Aydemir, 2014. "Empirical analysis of collusive behaviour in the Turkish deposits market," Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 527-538, January.
    3. Filippo Curti & Marco Migueis, 2023. "The Information Value of Past Losses in Operational Risk," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2023-003, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    4. Alexandre Passant & Philippe Laublet & John G. Breslin & Stefan Decker, 2009. "A URI is Worth a Thousand Tags: From Tagging to Linked Data with MOAT," International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS), IGI Global, vol. 5(3), pages 71-94, July.
    5. Pedro Neves Mata & Mário Nuno Mata & José Martins, 2023. "Does Participative Leadership Promote Employee Innovative Work Behavior in IT Organizations," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(05), pages 1-28, August.
    6. Marina Candi & Monia Melia & Maria Colurcio, 2019. "Two Birds with One Stone: The Quest for Addressing Both Business Goals and Social Needs with Innovation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 1019-1033, December.
    7. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    8. Shneor, Rotem & Munim, Ziaul Haque, 2019. "Reward crowdfunding contribution as planned behaviour: An extended framework," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 56-70.
    9. Ricardo Gottschalk & Lavinia B. Castro & Jiajun Xu, 2022. "Should National Development Banks be Subject to Basel III?," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(2), pages 249-267, April.
    10. Cumming, Douglas & Dannhauser, Robert & Johan, Sofia, 2015. "Financial market misconduct and agency conflicts: A synthesis and future directions," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 150-168.
    11. Alessandro Carretta & Vincenzo Farina & Paola Schwizer, 2017. "Risk culture and banking supervision," Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 25(2), pages 209-226, May.
    12. Sanjit Dhami & Ali al-Nowaihi & Cass R. Sunstein, 2019. "Heuristics and Public Policy: Decision-making Under Bounded Rationality," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 7(1), pages 7-58, June.
    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. Tomer Siedner, 2015. "Risk of Monetary Gambles: An Axiomatic Approach," Discussion Paper Series dp682, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    2. Uriel Procaccia & Uzi Segal, 2003. "Super Majoritarianism and the Endowment Effect," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 181-207, November.
    3. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Zimmermann, Jacqueline M., 1998. "Buying and Selling Prices of Investments: Configural Weight Model of Interactions Predicts Violations of Joint Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 145-187, May.
    4. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Jean-Louis Arcand & Grégoire Rota Graziosi, 2005. "Tax Compliance and Rank Dependent Expected Utility," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 30(1), pages 57-69, June.
    7. Ghafoori, Eraj & Mata, Fernanda & Lauren, Nita & Faulkner, Nick & Tear, Morgan J., 2023. "Measuring risk culture in finance: Development of a comprehensive measure," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    8. Marek Jenöffy, 2023. "A Seesaw Model of Choices," Working Papers hal-04136550, HAL.
    9. Fabian Herweg & Daniel Muller & Philipp Weinschenk, 2010. "Binary Payment Schemes: Moral Hazard and Loss Aversion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2451-2477, December.
    10. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    11. Joshua Aizenman & Nancy P. Marion, 1999. "Uncertainty and the disappearance of international credit," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, issue Sep.
    12. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    13. George Wu, 1999. "Anxiety and Decision Making with Delayed Resolution of Uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 159-199, April.
    14. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2016. "Expected utility theory and inner and outer measures of loss aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 10-20.
    15. Veronika Köbberling & Peter P. Wakker, 2003. "Preference Foundations for Nonexpected Utility: A Generalized and Simplified Technique," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 395-423, August.
    16. Asuamah Yeboah, Samuel & Mogre, Diana & Nartey Menzo, Benjamin Prince, 2024. "Beyond the Numbers: Social Factors in Credit Risk," MPRA Paper 122363, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 Aug 2024.
    17. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    18. Król, Michał, 2012. "Product differentiation decisions under ambiguous consumer demand and pessimistic expectations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 593-604.
    19. Kareen Rozen, 2010. "Foundations of Intrinsic Habit Formation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1341-1373, July.
    20. Shunda, Nicholas, 2009. "Auctions with a buy price: The case of reference-dependent preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 645-664, November.
    21. Koszegi, Botond & Rabin, Matthew, 2004. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt0w82b6nm, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.

    More about this item

    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:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03664-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.