Paradigma decisional multicriterial enfocado hacia el proceso de toma de decisiones en la organización

28 Páginas.

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores Principales: Jimenez Medina, Linda Melisa, Vélez Molina, Vilma
Otros Autores: Bermúdez Jaimes, Milton Eduardo
Formato: Desconocido (Unknown)
Lenguaje:Español (Spanish)
Publicado: Universidad de La Sabana 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:http://hdl.handle.net/10818/4642
id ir-10818-4642
recordtype dspace
institution Universidad de La Sabana
collection DSpace
language Español (Spanish)
topic Toma de decisiones
Trabajo en equipo
Liderazgo
Comunicación organizacional
Solución de conflictos
spellingShingle Toma de decisiones
Trabajo en equipo
Liderazgo
Comunicación organizacional
Solución de conflictos
Jimenez Medina, Linda Melisa
Vélez Molina, Vilma
Paradigma decisional multicriterial enfocado hacia el proceso de toma de decisiones en la organización
description 28 Páginas.
author2 Bermúdez Jaimes, Milton Eduardo
author_facet Bermúdez Jaimes, Milton Eduardo
Jimenez Medina, Linda Melisa
Vélez Molina, Vilma
format Desconocido (Unknown)
author Jimenez Medina, Linda Melisa
Vélez Molina, Vilma
author_sort Jimenez Medina, Linda Melisa
title Paradigma decisional multicriterial enfocado hacia el proceso de toma de decisiones en la organización
title_short Paradigma decisional multicriterial enfocado hacia el proceso de toma de decisiones en la organización
title_full Paradigma decisional multicriterial enfocado hacia el proceso de toma de decisiones en la organización
title_fullStr Paradigma decisional multicriterial enfocado hacia el proceso de toma de decisiones en la organización
title_full_unstemmed Paradigma decisional multicriterial enfocado hacia el proceso de toma de decisiones en la organización
title_sort paradigma decisional multicriterial enfocado hacia el proceso de toma de decisiones en la organización
publisher Universidad de La Sabana
publishDate 2012
url http://hdl.handle.net/10818/4642
_version_ 1679477986598846464
spelling ir-10818-46422019-06-20T19:34:12Z Paradigma decisional multicriterial enfocado hacia el proceso de toma de decisiones en la organización Jimenez Medina, Linda Melisa Vélez Molina, Vilma Bermúdez Jaimes, Milton Eduardo Toma de decisiones Trabajo en equipo Liderazgo Comunicación organizacional Solución de conflictos 28 Páginas. El presente artículo es una recopilación de diversos modelos y teorías planteadas por diferentes autores, quienes han enfocado sus estudios a la investigación de los diferentes criterios que influyen en el proceso de toma de decisión (PTD) en una organización, tomando fuerza y dando lugar al paradigma multicriterial que involucra criterios tales como el trabajo en equipo e individual y sus consecuencias, el liderazgo desde varias perspectivas, la comunicación como medio para el logro de los objetivos, la motivación del equipo de trabajo, la edad como factor influyente, el tiempo empleado para dar soluciones y la tecnología utilizada para optimizar el proceso de toma de decisión (PTD) en la organización. 2012-12-04T23:06:44Z 2012-12-04T23:06:44Z 2005 2005 bachelorThesis Tesis de pregrado publishedVersion Ajzen,I. (2002). Residual effects of past on later behaviour: habituation and the reasoned action perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 107 – 122. Adler, P., y Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling vs. coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, March, 61 – 89 Adler, P., y Borys, B. (1999). Building better bureaucracies. Academy of Management Executive, 13 (4), 36 – 46. Alge, B., Wiethoff, C., y Klein, H. (2003). When does the medium matter? Knowledge – building experiences and opportunities in decision – making teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 26 – 37. Baum, J., y Wally, S. (2003). Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1107 – 1129. Bentler, P. (1999). Models of attitude – behavior relations, Psychological Review, 86, 452 – 464. Betsch, T., Haberstroh, S., Molter, B., y Glöckner, A. (2004). The effects of routines strength on adaptation and information search in recurrent decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 23 – 53. Betsch, T., Haberstroh, S., Molter, B., y Glöckner, A. (2004). Oops, I did It again – relapse errors in routinized decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 62 – 74. Bryson, N. (1994). An approach to using the analytic hierarchy process for solving multiple Criteria decision – Making problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 76 (3), 440 – 454. Cremer, D., y Knippenberg, D. (2003). Cooperation with leaders in social dilemmas: On the effects of procedural fairness and outcome favorability in structural cooperation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 1 – 11. Dadkhah, K., y Zahedi, F. (2003). A mathematical treatment of inconsistency in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17, 111 – 122. Dess, G., y Beard, D. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 52 73 Dodge, H., Fullerton, S., y Robbins J. (2000). Stage of the organizational life – cycle and competition as mediators of problem perception for small business. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (2), 121 – 134 Duncan, R. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 313 – 327. Duncan, R. (1974). Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation: Evidence of a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 423 – 443. Eisenhard, k. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543 – 567. Fiske, S., y Neuberg, L. (1999). A continuum model of impression formation from category – based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1 – 74. Fraidin, S. (2004). When is one head better than two? Interdependent information in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 102 – 113. Fredrickson, J. (1984). The comprehensiveness of strategic decision processes: extension, observations, future directions. Academy of Management Journal Review, 27, 445 – 466. Fredrickson, J. (1994). The strategic decision process and organization structure. Academy of Management Journal Review, 11 (2), 280 – 297. Gibson, C. (1999), Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 138 – 152. Gigone, D., y Hastie, R. (1997). Proper Análisis of the accuracy of group judgements. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 149 – 167. Hogh, J., y White, M. (2003) Environmental dynamism and strategic decision – making rationality: An examination at the decision level. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 481 – 489. Hertwig, R., y Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologist. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 383 – 451. Humphrey, S., Moon, H., Conlon, D., y Hofmann, D. (2004). Decision – Making and behavior fluidity: How focus on completion and emphasis on safety changes over the course of projects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 14 – 27. Judge, W., y Miller, A. (1991). Antecedents and outcomes of decision speed in different environmental contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 449 – 463. Judy, D. (1984). Genetic screening for employement purposes. Personnel Psychology, 37, 423 – 438. Lam, S., y Schaubroeck, J. (2000). Improving group decisión by better pooling information: A comparative advantage of group decisión support systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (2), 565 – 573. Marlowe, P., y Gergen, K. (1976). Opponents personality, expectation of social interaction, and interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 206 – 213. McCune, P., (1994). Weapons in the workplace: A review of employeer policies. Management review, 3, 52 -57. McGrath, J., y O´Connor, K. (1997). Groups: Time, performance and human interactions. Small Group Research, 22, 147 – 174. Medsker, T., Williams, L. y Holohan, P. (1994). A review of current practices for evaluating casual models in organizations behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management, 20, 439 – 448. Mitchell, T. (1990). Toward an understanding of intuitive and automatic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 1 - 20. Moon, H., Conlon, D., Humphrey, S., Quigley, N., Devers, C., y Nowakowski, J. (2003). Group decision process and incrementalism in organizational decision – making. Organizacional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 67 – 79. Mosakowski, E. (1997). A resource based perspective on the dynamic strategy – performance relationship: An empirical examination of the focus and differentiations strategies in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Management, 19, 819 – 839. Parks, C., y Cowlin, R. (1995). Group discussion as affected by number of alternatives and by a time limit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 276 – 275. Pearce, J., y Gregersen, H. (1993). Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 838 – 844. Rajagopalan, N. (1999). Strategic decision Processes: Critical review and future directions. Journal of Management, 19, 349 – 384. Renaud, K. (2000). Communication richness in electronic mail: Critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning, MIS Quarterly, June, 145 – 167 Roberts, A. (2000). Relationships among components of credibility and communication behaviors in work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 99 – 102. Saaty, T., y Rogers, P. (1980). A theory of the analytical hierarchies applied to political candidacy. Behavioral Science, 22, 237 – 255. Saaty, T., y Farman, B. (1983). The extended Analytic Hierarchy decisión method. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 11 (15), 141 – 151. Saaty, T. (1996). Portfolio selection through hierarchies. Journal of Portfolio Management, 6 (3), 16 – 21 Saaty, T. (1997). Implementing neutral firing: Towards a new technology. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 26 (4), 113 – 124. Saaty, T. (2000). The Analytic Hierarchy Processes: How to make a decision. Management Science, 32, 485 – 498. Schweiger, D. (1993). The utilization of individual capabilities in group approaches to strategic decision – making. Strategic Management, 17 681 – 700. Shore, L., Goldberg, C., y Cleveland, J. (2003). Work attitudes and decisions as a function of manager age and employee age. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (3), 529 – 537. Stasser, G., y Titus, W. (1995). Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 53, 81 – 93. Vander Pooten, J. (1995). Rational decision – making and structure: Analysis and implications for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 7 – 32. Vargas, L. (2000). Priority theory and utility Theory and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 48 (1), 2 – 8. Victor, R., y Blackburn, R. (1998). Interdependence: An Alternative conceptualization . Acedemy of Management Review, 12, 486 – 498. Wageman, R. (1999). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145 – 180 Winkist, H., y Larson, J. (1998). Attitudes, decisions and habits as determinants of repeated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29, 349 – 369. Zhang, G., y Lu, J. (2003). An integrated group decision – making method dealing with fuzzy preferences for alternatives and individual judgments for selection criteria. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12, 501 – 515. http://hdl.handle.net/10818/4642 87450 TE04072 es openAccess Universidad de La Sabana Psicología Facultad de Psicología Universidad de la Sabana Intellectum Repositorio Universidad de la Sabana
score 12,131701