Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Strategic Decision Making and Implementation in Public Organizations in the Gulf Cooperation Council: The Role of Procedural Rationality

Al‐Hashimi, Khalid, Weerakkody, Vishanth, Elbanna, Said, Schwarz, Gary·2022·Public Administration Review
DOI 10.1111/puar.13447
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Based on Herbert Simon's conceptualization of bounded rationality, this article develops and tests an integrative model of the strategic decision‐making process (SDMP) and outcomes in public organizations. The model integrates different SDMP dimensions—procedural rationality, intuition, participation, and constructive politics—and examines their impacts on the successful implementation of strategic decisions. Additionally, it analyzes the influence of implementation on the overall outcomes of strategic decisions. The model was tested with data from multiple sources on 170 strategic decisions collected from senior executives working in 38 public organizations in Qatar—a context in which studies on decision making are rare. With the exception of intuition, this study shows a positive impact of all SDMP dimensions on the successful implementation and outcomes of strategic decisions. Successful implementation fully mediates the relationships between procedural rationality, participation, and constructive politics and the outcomes of strategic decisions. Evidence for Practice: The study shows how managers decide on strategic issues for public organizations. There is a positive relationship between procedural rationality, participation, and constructive politics and the successful implementation of strategic decisions. Public managers can influence the success of strategic decisions by establishing formal processes to ensure that all relevant information is collected and analyzed and that people with experience and diverse perspectives participate in decision making. Developing effective implementation processes is necessary for improving the outcomes of strategic decisions in public organizations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/puar.13447

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Bryson John M., 2018, Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations
  2. 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Elbanna Said, 2010, Making Strategic Decisions: A State of the Art Review and Empirical Evidence from a Cultural Perspective
  4. 10.1111/puar.12609 · DOI
  5. Hayek Friedrich A., 1945, The Use of Knowledge in Society, American Economic Review, 35, 519
  6. International Monetary Fund, 2020, Economic Prospects and Policy Challenges for the GCC Countries. IMF Policy Paper 65, 1
  7. Pressman Jeffrey L., 1973, Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland
  8. Rainey Hal G., 2010, Handbook of Decision Making, 349
  9. Shepherd Neil G., 2014, An Empirical Examination of the Strategic Decision‐Making Process

Metadata

Authors
Al‐Hashimi, K., Weerakkody, V., Elbanna, S., & Schwarz, G.
Venue
Public Administration Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-12-23
Volume
82
Issue
5
Pages
905-919
ISSN
  • 0033-3352
  • 1540-6210
DOI
10.1111/puar.13447
Cited by
32
References
95
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.