scholarly journals The Validity of the Cost Stickiness Theory in SMEs and The Decision-Making Styles of Managers: Evidence from Turkey

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-98
Author(s):  
Hakan Yazarkan ◽  
Sema Yiğit ◽  
Bahadır Baş
2021 ◽  
Vol 235 ◽  
pp. 02020
Author(s):  
Pan Keke

China market economy is in a new period of structural deceleration. Factors, such as fierce external competition and the advancement of the globalization process have put Chinese companies under enormous development pressure. Cost management is very important for improving the utilization rate of resources, the core competitiveness of an enterprise, and achieving the net profit target set by the enterprise. The basis study of cost management is the cost form. After the stickiness of costs is proposed, it has been widely concerned by academia and practice. Managers are the decision-makers of business activities and internal information disclosure. The current shareholding structure of the Chinese government’s macro-control has formed an “insider control” phenomenon, which highlights the importance of managers. Overconfidence of the managers can strongly impact on the manager’s decision-making. Based on this, it is of great significance to study the influence of managers’ overconfidence on the cost stickiness. This paper uses the data of Shanghai and Shenzhen A shares manufacturing companies from 2014 to 2018 to verify the existence of cost stickiness, and then studies the influence of managers’ overconfidence on the cost stickiness. The study found that there is a phenomenon of cost stickiness in listed companies in China’s manufacturing industry. More over, managers’ overconfidence can aggravate the problem of cost stickiness of enterprises. The innovation of the research is as following. Firstly, it enriches the research perspective of the sticky motivation of costs. Secondly, the study extends the research of managers’ overconfidence to the field of cost decision-making.


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Nygren ◽  
Rebecca White ◽  
Kristi Snuttjer

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 849-865
Author(s):  
Mihriay Musa ◽  

In this study, it was aimed to examine the reading habits levels and making the correct decision styles of basketball, handball, volleyball, and football coaches and referees in terms of some variables, the research was carried out with the general survey model, one of the quantitative research designs, the active coaches and referees of basketball, football, volleyball, and handball in İzmir, Denizli and Uşak provinces constituted the universe of the study, the sample of the study, on the other hand, consisted of 98 participants, 52 of whom were coaches and 46 were referees, determined by the simple random sampling method, one sample t-test at a 0.05 significance level was conducted to determine whether the sample represented the universe equally and homogeneously. Melbourne decision making scale I-II, and book reading habits scale were used to collect data in the study. Since the data are suitable for normal distribution, the t-test in comparing the pairwise means; parametric tests such as one-way ANOVA tests were used at 0.05 significance level in comparing the mean scores of more than two groups. In terms of education levels, it has been observed that female coaches and referees studying at faculties of sports sciences have higher levels of reading habit, love of reading, and being influenced by books. In addition, it was determined that individuals who trust and respect the decisions of their families have higher reading habits and correct decision-making styles and do not panic during the decision-making process.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
YeungEun Hong ◽  
SooJin Kim ◽  
JongKook Park
Keyword(s):  
The Cost ◽  

Author(s):  
Vivek N. Bhatt

The article focuses on the study of prevailing decision making styles of Small Scale Industrial (SSI) Units. It presents data collected from 200 SSI units from Bhavnagar – a coastal city of Gujarat, India. The objective of writing the article is to depict heuristic decision patterns of small and medium enterprises, and the rare use of analytical or statistical business intelligence tools in decision making processes. It would be interesting to study the design of decision taken on routine basis in small units, poorly equipped with technology and technical know-how. The paper is descriptive in terms, and lays a lucid picture of present decision making processes.


Author(s):  
Robin Markwica

In coercive diplomacy, states threaten military action to persuade opponents to change their behavior. The goal is to achieve a target’s compliance without incurring the cost in blood and treasure of military intervention. Coercers typically employ this strategy toward weaker actors, but targets often refuse to submit and the parties enter into war. To explain these puzzling failures of coercive diplomacy, existing accounts generally refer to coercers’ perceived lack of resolve or targets’ social norms and identities. What these approaches either neglect or do not examine systematically is the role that emotions play in these encounters. The present book contends that target leaders’ affective experience can shape their decision-making in significant ways. Drawing on research in psychology and sociology, the study introduces an additional, emotion-based action model besides the traditional logics of consequences and appropriateness. This logic of affect, or emotional choice theory, posits that target leaders’ choice behavior is influenced by the dynamic interplay between their norms, identities, and five key emotions, namely fear, anger, hope, pride, and humiliation. The core of the action model consists of a series of propositions that specify the emotional conditions under which target leaders are likely to accept or reject a coercer’s demands. The book applies the logic of affect to Nikita Khrushchev’s decision-making during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and Saddam Hussein’s choice behavior in the Gulf conflict in 1990–91, offering a novel explanation for why coercive diplomacy succeeded in one case but not in the other.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document