Elvis Elezaj
| Bekë Kuqi*
© 2023 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
Research reveals the externative organizational factors, their impact on the weight of managers in the decision-making process for a development and creation of sustainable leaderism. Emphasizing that the factors of the managerial environment constantly have an effect and produce changes, bringing challenges for managers to make decisions. Research will analyze their impact and the attention that managers pay to this unstructured and non-routine dimension of decisions. This research is based on the derivation of analyzes through the Correlational Field Study (CFS), the use of some models for measuring impact and sustainability such as General Linear Model (GLM) the analysis of consistency index (CI) measurements for decision making (DM) through the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Research highlights the SEM-PLS approach by closely identifying the inter-connection and the weight of the interlinkage between externative factors and decision-making. Study was conducted in 100 study organizations in Kosovo. Firstly, brings the correlation analysis between the factors by looking more closely at their correlation and decision making, secondly the impact on the weight that these factors lading during managerial analyses, thirdly through the AHP method we highlight the clear analysis of the consistency index (CI) and random consistency (CR) proving that decision making is influenced day-to-day by extern factors such as: uncertainty, risk, turbulence dynamics etc. Inevitably be considered for future research the new era of business peripherically changes such: competitiveness, ambiguity and ambidextrous.
externative organizational factors (EOF), analyses & consistency and decision-making
Nowadays decision-making has transmogrified in a field of actions with difficulties for every organizational leader, and especially when we refer to the external organizational environment, taking into account many factors that have weight and an important role in managerial actions. Decision-making is a highly extensive and difficult process in today's contemporary times that managers and leaders of organizations face. Is characterized as a process of definition of set of possible options or variants [1-3] to solve a problem. This process is related to the external analysis of the organization which must inevitably be given attention to analyze and select a variant which creates productivity for the organization.
Regarding the set of choices that can generate to make decisions, the creation of alternatives is a process and spectrum of creationism and creativity [4, 5] which is based on the generation of ideas and solutions that managers build to find variants or solutions to face the externative problems of organization environment. Paying special attention to decision making is a segment which explains the connections with the factors of the organization's environment which constantly and inextricably influence organizations. The analysis of managerial environment factors gives us results on the changes that occur in the environment and the effects that they can produce.
These effects or changes to managers bring challenging results for change and adaptation to the environment by harmonizing resources and all their capabilities to this change. Based on that organization must proceed to adaptability which turns out the relationship between the clear interlinkage an organization's long-range successide and its existence and the ability to support the achievement of managerial environmental factors [6-8].
The link of the organization with its operating environment, respectively the externative analysis of the organization itself are an important dimension due to the fact that the externative managerial environment which is a dimension of many factors operate initiating from ambiguity, risk, uncertainty etc., which are almost key factors attacking the organization relentlessly by “non-emotion interlinkage” or “sensationalessness” that is focused on linking the organizations involved in relation to the aimed markets and posturing in industry. Whereas, there are a lot of difficulties, challenges and contradictions that are extremely complexness in finding relations that can impact into external analysis in order to increment organizative performance against surrounds factors for creating an "organistic" link, so that the entire system could perform as one the whole organism. The focus on continuity in the importance of the externative analysis of the organization as a concept is created as a dependency of the philosophy of the organization that can and does make changes in their strategy and how it works by adapting to changes in its operating environment.
Mal-feeling towards changes cannot always represent a concern; it is not an “evil” context of thinking that organizations change their competitive leadership which in most cases is one of the most frequent questions in organizational research [9-11]. The researches are looking for the existence on the occurrence of many strategic changes which try to determine the weight of the organizational obstacles, as well as the improvement of their abilities for the possibility of adapting to the strategic change [12-15].
New arguments are coming as a result of new trends that are improving the paradigm to diagnose the relationship between managerial knowledge as a skill and the organizational environmental change process as an insurmountable production factor [16, 17]. The related aspect of clarity and identification of purity can be used to recommend an organizational action or step which is based on the convictions and purified judgments of decision makers on how the organization can achieve progressive success through its surrounding competitive environment [18]. If we take into account the generation of these obtained results, we can also summarize that the interpretations and elaborations of the competitive environment oneself and organizational actions required the so-called the terminology of “war” environment [19].
Credibility can also be developed over epochs, based on retrospective activities and results, and especially through historiographies, taking into account the analyzed and the need to superimpose a rational representation so that we can generate a "photographic preview" for leadership and organization development [20-24]. If we have failed to implement the system change and to adapt to the changes that are created by the competitive environment, it may lead to delays in the necessary adjustments and measures necessary in our strategy and may lead to reductions or even organizational failure [25-29].
An external managerial environment suggests that new interpretations based on changes adapt their skills and knowledge in harmony with the circumstances. Regarding the independence of importance which is proposed to be interpreted against the adaptation process, it is understood very little how the interpretations can change to adapt to the changes in managerial environments during the external analysis or regarding the relationship between the changes that can be created in interpretation and time that contains organizational change [30-34].
The aim of the research is to gain a lot of knowledge about the interpretations that can change over time and to adapt the concepts of the ambiguity of the environment and gradually the reconceptualize of those that are now known, as well as the interaction linkage in this continuum of organizational changes. Industry-based on analyzes incorporate a scanning assessment of the surrounding managerial factors to identify which external forces of the organization have the immediate impact on its competitive well-positioning and what are the additional competitive actions that the organization should implement to clearly understand sustainable leaderism.
The analysis that businesses are using is a good and unique opportunity to prove that not only technology is being used effectively to subordinate the organization's work, but they are also identifying explicit variants that can lead to business change. Therefore, organizations are increasing their competitiveness by applying multiple analytical approaches, while the amount of data is constantly increasing, people with skills, competences and craftsmanship’s to use these data in this post-modern and strongly competitive environment [35-37].
Although organizations today can use descriptive statistics from a lot of existing data available, those that are using analytical approaches and implementing different models based on analysis tried to read and understand their operating environment, because the goal is to forecast the behavior of key actors, e.g. customers and suppliers optimization of production operations etc.
Organizations today are creating competitive differentiation through the use of multiple analytical applications and techniques, but this association is becoming a form of replacement of the operative function to new approaches to organization and management [38-40]. The analytical paradigm is a vital and crucial segment, as information today has become a key asset and plays an important strategic role in organizations in the years or decades of contemporary times, and this analytical system is creating great value by providing an undisputed support and systematic decision-making in an extraordinary way [41, 42].
An environment with predictable conditions, the surrounding managerial variables are kept related and dependently constant or can evolve at a steady rate and completely under controlled to be managed, and oriented to competitive evolutionary situations, and changing gradually and not revolutionary momentums. On other part, environments characterized by uncertainty are sometimes attributed as a so-called Schumpeterian shock that involves a process of destroying the creativity of existing technological meanings [43, 44].
In the aforementioned environments, it is very difficult to frame and pinpoint the purpose of strategic variants and also very difficult to foresee the effectiveness of each of the variants [45, 46]. An environment characterized by ambiguous as a consequence of stochastic changes in the environmental elements of the industry [47-49], it is clearly not possible to know with certainty what the results or expectations will be for different players. In some cases where the environment is ambiguous, there are only a few critical decision variables, scenarios, simulacrum techniques and dynamics modeling systems can facilitate leaders to create a series of hypotheses and judgments (predictions) for the future and identify variants and strategies [50-53].
These models find their basis in the weighing-valuation of the ambiguity and complexity of the environment focus on the long-term development possibilities of the strategic variables and not on the short-term movements of the players [54, 55]. Models, such scenario planning [56, 57] and several of analytical systems based in simulacrality find their basis in the study of the interaction between an insufficient number of known variables in situations with scale of uncertainty, interdependence and high complexity [58].
Based on view of resources of Mahoney and Pandian [59] management is a function and task that essentially manifests itself with complexity because resources and intellectual capital interact with each other, crafting an integrated dynamic system where reaction processes, delays and externative factors affect their dynamics [60]. In fact, managers are the most anxious about holding and maintaining the competitive position of their organization, they are still looking for a new approach or model to run their organization in environments with turbulent characteristics [61, 62]. An uncertain environment can make it difficult to discover new options and opportunities and even more so to foresees threats and risks [63].
Referring to Milliken [64] highlights that the terminology "uncertain environment" can be a source of created confusion and ambiguity as managers must learn to describe the momentum of the organization's external environment, and also in situations where the organization lacks critical information about the surrounding environment. This has led researchers to insist on the argument that uncertainty should be evaluated (measured) or as an intuitive phenomenon (perception) as a production of the attributes of business operating environments [65]. Planning and analysis based on rationalization and consciousness are mechanisms to fight the uncertainty created by the externative environment [66].
Hence, we must re-thinking our approach against strategic decision-making by looking at the analysis from internative and externative sources of uncertainty, in order to understand and identify the type of uncertainty that is being lived [67]. Also, the risk has been evaluated in the context of an uncertainty [68-71].
Related to Worthington and Britton [72] the environment volatized can cause a scale of uncertainty for the organization (or for its business units or SBUs) and this leads to higher and more difficult knowledge, functions are intuited as out of step with the challenges faced by the externative environment of organization and will cause them to be undervalued or completely inferior along the strategic decision process [73-75]. Concepts related to decision-making during organizational external analysis [76, 77] include, among others, employee resistance, intra-organizational conflicts [78, 79] and reduced employee resilience.
The success of a leader is attributed and impacted by his ability to connect appropriately with the externative organizational environment, and also the adaptive connection of the external business environment itself is often the strategic premise of the company [80, 81]. In order to live this is a way that will improve the efficacy and effectiveness of the corporation, organizations must be fully prepared to use their internal resources well and rationally [82]. The internal resources of well-managed organizations can often contribute to differentiating advantages, because organizations create cost reductions and at the same time easily innovate [83, 84].
Research has surveyed 100 organizations in Kosovo, which are at the corporate level; data’s are primary gathered in different locations entire the country.
The processing and analysis of the data was done in a series of steps which used several fields of analysis; the Correlation Field Study (CFS) where, through the correlation coefficient, the connection between external organizational factors and decision-making by managers has been identified. Through the correlation, it was clearly identified which of these factors had the most influence and the representative connection that influenced the management decisions.
Furthermore, through the field of correlation, a spectrum of analyzes have been made, thus creating several analytical models of relationships such as GLM, Eta Partial Squared, KMO and Bartlett [85, 86] index as well as the multivariate tests. Further, the methodology will focus on even more detailed and in-depth analyzes such as the AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) model to analyze the consistency index connections [87-89] and those of chance or randomization (CI and CR), after correlational or post-correlative. The analysis and findings from AHP prove the stability of decision-making during the confrontation with extern-organizational factors.
$\mathrm{CR}=\frac{C I}{\text { const. }}$
CR – Consistency randomness,
CI – Consistency index,
Const. – constancy
And as a conclusion, the analysis goes beyond the correlation and consistently tested with correlation-AHP, in this research, the analysis and testing design is also the Structural Equation Model (SmartPLS) through which the design tries to bring out full clarity and precision for managers during the analysis in making decisions.
The structural connections will unfold and argue the inter-communication of the external factors of the environment with the horizon of the manager's view, thus creating the challenge of adaptation for an effective decision. Through SmartPLS, the analysis of the structures through the factors will demonstrate the high degree to which factor there is the greatest interrelation and focus during the analysis and decision-making. Moreover, this puts on the surface the concentration of the leaders of the organizations where they are positioned more when reading the external environment.
As shown in the table below, stable correlative expressions which show an important basis for considering factors during environmental scanning and analysis for decision-making. Based on the descriptive statistics according to the Pearson correlation, which on average we can draw as a value, which is higher than 6 (> 6) and also influences the interlink and the value that the rate of variables of the externative managerial group of the respondent businesses can expressed with a high validity.
Moreover, referring to Table 1 clearly reveals the scale of stability, which on the other hand is a strong indicator of the linkage in terms that there is a strong and very evident connection between the variables and further to derive the correlation coefficient for revealing what the existing relationship is as presented in this research case in this overall table, we can completely say that there is an undeniable correlative relationship and as previously discussed, that in certain tests the correlation values overcome 7 (>7).
In fact, the existence of remarkably positive scale of interdependence between them’s and this express a strong stability of the situation, shows that the model of the application of this set of variables as a result of which the model can provide an important basis of suitable analysis and meaningful assessment to make a decision, which are: risk (.710), market dynamics (.672), intra-organizational conflicts (.671) and uncertainty (.637).
Table 1. Correlations between externative organizational factors (EOF) and decision making (DM)
|
Correlations |
||||||||
|
Codes of variables |
DM |
R_S_O |
U_S_O |
D_I |
T_i_M |
I-O_C |
O_G |
|
|
Decision-making |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
.710** |
.637** |
.672** |
.586** |
.671** |
.577** |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
|
|
N |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
|
Risk_surround_organizations |
Pearson Correlation |
.710** |
1 |
.792** |
.814** |
.781** |
.784** |
.669** |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
|
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
.005 |
.000 |
|
|
N |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
|
Uncertainty_ surround_ organizations |
Pearson Correlation |
.637** |
.792** |
1 |
.734** |
.620** |
.698** |
.644** |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
.000 |
|
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
|
|
N |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
|
Dynamic_ industry |
Pearson Correlation |
.672** |
.814** |
.734** |
1 |
.739** |
.726** |
.753** |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
.000 |
.001 |
|
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
|
|
N |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
|
Turbulence_in_market |
Pearson Correlation |
.586** |
.781** |
.620** |
.739** |
1 |
.779** |
.713** |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
|
.000 |
.000 |
|
|
N |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
|
Intra-organizational_ conflicts |
Pearson Correlation |
.671** |
.784** |
.698** |
.726** |
.779** |
1 |
.747** |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
|
.000 |
|
|
N |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
|
Organization_ globalize |
Pearson Correlation |
.577** |
.669** |
.644** |
.753** |
.713** |
.747** |
1 |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
.002 |
.000 |
.003 |
|
|
|
N |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
Source: Calculated by author’s
Table 2. Multivariate test between decision-making and externative organizational factors (EOF)
|
Multivariate Testsa |
|||||||
|
Effect |
Value |
F |
Hypothesis df |
Error df |
Sig. |
Partial Eta Squared |
|
|
Intercept |
Pillai's Trace |
.914 |
160.752b |
6.000 |
91.000 |
.000 |
.914 |
|
Wilks' Lambda |
.086 |
160.752b |
6.000 |
91.000 |
.000 |
.914 |
|
|
Hotelling's Trace |
10.599 |
160.752b |
6.000 |
91.000 |
.000 |
.914 |
|
|
Roy's Largest Root |
10.599 |
160.752b |
6.000 |
91.000 |
.000 |
.914 |
|
|
Decision_ Making |
Pillai's Trace |
.748 |
5.146 |
18.000 |
279.000 |
.000 |
.249 |
|
Wilks' Lambda |
.375 |
5.938 |
18.000 |
257.872 |
.000 |
.279 |
|
|
Hotelling's Trace |
1.352 |
6.737 |
18.000 |
269.000 |
.000 |
.311 |
|
|
Roy's Largest Root |
1.086 |
16.836c |
6.000 |
93.000 |
.000 |
.521 |
|
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of test in groups (EOF)
|
|
Decision_Making |
Mean |
Std. Dev. |
N |
|
Risk_ surround_ organizations |
Slight low |
1.40 |
.548 |
5 |
|
Moderate |
2.36 |
.930 |
55 |
|
|
Slight high |
2.69 |
.970 |
26 |
|
|
High |
2.36 |
.497 |
14 |
|
|
Total |
2.40 |
.910 |
100 |
|
|
Uncertainty_surround_ organizations |
Slight low |
1.40 |
.548 |
5 |
|
Moderate |
2.29 |
1.012 |
55 |
|
|
Slight high |
2.69 |
1.050 |
26 |
|
|
High |
2.14 |
.363 |
14 |
|
|
Total |
2.33 |
.975 |
100 |
|
|
Dynamic_ industry |
Slight un-exponential |
2.00 |
.000 |
5 |
|
Average |
2.42 |
.809 |
55 |
|
|
Slight exponential |
2.92 |
.744 |
26 |
|
|
Exponential |
2.14 |
.363 |
14 |
|
|
Total |
2.49 |
.772 |
100 |
|
|
Turbulence_in_market |
Slight slow |
2.00 |
.000 |
5 |
|
Average |
2.29 |
.975 |
55 |
|
|
Slight fast |
2.85 |
.834 |
26 |
|
|
Fast |
2.36 |
.497 |
14 |
|
|
Total |
2.43 |
.891 |
100 |
|
|
Intra-organizational_ conflicts |
Slight low |
1.00 |
.000 |
5 |
|
Average |
1.18 |
.547 |
55 |
|
|
Slight high |
2.38 |
1.023 |
26 |
|
|
High |
1.43 |
.852 |
14 |
|
|
Total |
1.52 |
.893 |
100 |
|
|
Organization_ globalize |
Slight |
1.00 |
.000 |
5 |
|
Average |
1.35 |
.844 |
55 |
|
|
Much |
1.08 |
.272 |
26 |
|
|
Very much |
2.00 |
1.177 |
14 |
|
|
Total |
1.35 |
.821 |
100 |
Source: Calculated by author’s
Table 4. Test of Equality of Covariance (EOF)
|
Test of the KMO and Bartlett's |
||
|
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. |
.796 |
|
|
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity |
Approx. Chi-Square |
151.465 |
|
Dif. |
6 |
|
|
Sig. |
.000 |
|
Source: Calculated by author’s
Further, the derive of analyzes see Table 3, through multivariate testing were carried out by concretizing a series of various tests which also explained how the dependent variable affected the model, to be detailed later through the significance that expresses a stability of connection = .000. Indicator shows this relationship and consistency of making decision is Partial Eta Squared which says that the error rate cannot exceed the level higher than 1 (<1), which in this research is lower than 1 (> 1) also an important rule that clarifies that we are within the limits of normality related to the multivariate testing’s, which in our case are expressed: (.249), (.279), (.311), (.521) see Table 2.
Regarding the above tables in the factorial analysis, the Bartlett’s and KMO test, the scale of endurance or even significance is of particular importance, which should always remain equivalent to a significance level of .000, as disclosed above indicates a level of consistency. Therefore, here we can verify a high degree of sustainable connection that exists between decision-making and external factors of the organization. Further, orienting to the Kaise-Meyer-Olkin measurement level, we can see that according to this scale .796 we are in an adequate fit category or close to 0.8 according to this scale expressed as meritorious, see Table 4.
4.1 Analyses through AHP approach
Description of factors and revelation of their weights in pairwise comparisons
In the following table, see Table 5, we have identified and prioritized factors according to the calculations in the standardization matrix of AHP method show that, two of the most important factors are: risk around organizations (36.7%), uncertainty around organization (26.0%) and market dynamics (14.8%) see Table 6. Whereas, it is argued together with the correlative tables that the focus of managers during decision-making is focused on these factors according to the degree of connection and according to the index of consistency (CI) and that of approach (CR).
As we can see from the table below of the calculations of the general factors within the organizational surround we conclusively identified the consistency of the variables as a score of the weightiness and significance of these variables. Following the steps explored according to the formulaic calculations for the AHP scale and the created equation, we can see where the quadrate is a very important basis of analysis and making decisions is based on the value of the randomize or randomness index which Rvalue=0.062 or (.062), which means that it should not be greater than 0.1 or derived in equation Rvalue<0.1, that shows the consistencement of variables.
$\begin{gathered}C I=0.07 \\ \text { Const. }=1.24 \\ C R=\frac{C I}{\text { const. }}=\frac{0.077}{1.24}=0.062 \\ C R=0.06\end{gathered}$
Rvalue=0.062
4.2 Analyzes with SEM – PLS (Structural Equation Model – SmartPLS)
From the analyses made through SmartPLS, we see that the influence of the environment and the factors of the managerial environment is inseparable and very affecting during the analysis and decision-making by the managers. As presented in Figure 1, we see that decision-making is highly characterized and closely related to the evaluation of external organizational factors. Regarding to the analyses by bootstrapping disclosed above, we can emphasize and verify that the path coefficients and p-values are distributed according to the importance and weight for each factor.
Table 5. Pairwise comparisons of externative organizational factors
|
Factor’s Description |
Risk surround organizations |
Uncertainty surround organizations |
Dynamic industry |
Turbulence in market |
Intra organizational conflicts |
Organization globalize |
|
Risk surround organizations |
1.00 |
7.00 |
5.00 |
4.00 |
3.00 |
2.00 |
|
Uncertainty surround organizations |
0.14 |
1.00 |
3.00 |
5.00 |
4.00 |
3.00 |
|
Dynamic industry |
0.20 |
0.33 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.00 |
3.00 |
|
Turbulence in market |
0.25 |
0.20 |
0.20 |
1.00 |
4.00 |
4.00 |
|
Intra organizational conflicts |
0.33 |
0.25 |
0.33 |
0.25 |
1.00 |
3.00 |
|
Organization globalize |
0.50 |
0.33 |
0.33 |
0.25 |
0.33 |
1.00 |
|
Total score |
2.42 |
9.11 |
9.88 |
15.50 |
15.33 |
16.00 |
Source: Calculated by authors
Table 6. Standardized matrix of externative organizational factors
|
Factor’s Description |
Risk surround organizations |
Uncertainty surround organizations |
Dynamic industry |
Turbulence in market |
Intra organizational conflicts |
Organization globalize |
Weight of factors |
|
Risk surround organizations |
0.41 |
0.49 |
0.38 |
0.32 |
0.27 |
0.33 |
36.7% |
|
Uncertainty surround organizations |
0.21 |
0.24 |
0.38 |
0.32 |
0.27 |
0.14 |
26.0% |
|
Dynamic industry |
0.14 |
0.08 |
0.13 |
0.24 |
0.16 |
0.14 |
14.8% |
|
Turbulence in market |
0.10 |
0.06 |
0.04 |
0.08 |
0.22 |
0.19 |
11.6% |
|
Intra organizational conflicts |
0.08 |
0.05 |
0.04 |
0.02 |
0.05 |
0.14 |
6.5% |
|
Organization globalize |
0.06 |
0.08 |
0.04 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
0.05 |
4.5% |
Figure 1. Smart-PLS structure of externative organizational factors (EOF)
Figure 2. Scheme of links between factors (EOF) and variable (DM)
We can see that the path coefficients have resulted that the highest influence is expressed in market turbulence or the speed of variability of market movements (.461 or 0.002) market dynamics as forms of exponential power with new entries in the expressed industry (.446 or .078). Another important factor that has turned out to have a high impact during analysis and managerial decision-making is the risk that exists in the market as a result of price movements and the possibility to perceive it is (.428) an inevitable significance, but with a path coefficient (.171) with a not very high relevance of price fluctuations. Uncertainty as a factor has turned out to be a component of slight-mid importance and not very moderate in the decision-making process, even because its p-value is (.285) approximately average in its relevance as an influence on decision-making.
Furthermore, intra-organizational conflicts are another factor that marked a moderate impact on the managerial bias expressed with (.336) and with a strong path coefficient (.001), implying that the organizational culture is one of the key elements in building of a suitable working atmosphere and behavior within organizations. What's more, it is the process of the stages of organizational construction where it is located in the upper formation (the life cycle of culture – iceberg stage, melting or liquid).
In Figure 2, we can clearly see the connections between the factors and a more extended scheme of the derivation of factors in the decision-making process to flow further into the organization's performance, where we have an above-average connection (.393) and with a significance of (.000). Furthermore, this scheme has established a new approach to practical managerial analysis towards a clear and accurate positioning in industry, which is showed (.537) in R squared, where a strong correlation between external organizational factors is shown and decision-making by leaders.
Summary, we can inevitably say that the factors of the external managerial environment are a spectrum of systematic analysis and step by step specifying their weight and the importance they have in the manager's function.
The group of factors that are externative of organization or the environment of the organization with the most prominent weight are: dynamics, risk, turbulence, intra-organizational conflicts. The conclusions continue as a result of multiple analyzes made by finding the averages of the 6 factors to see how effective decision-making is within organizations. Analysis from AHP method gives us the clear preview of weight of factors consistence which can reflect the basis of the result, according to analyzes made, all turned out to be acceptable in terms of the consistency index and the random index [90] which cannot be greater than 0.1.
Furthermore, these analyzes have been made that the researcher has tested all the factors under the influence of each other, where again they appear to be risk, uncertainty, dynamics, turbulence as a chronologically ordered factors that affects the manager's work especially nowadays. Seen from this prism, the researches have turned out to be specifically in “factor” and that the managers have focused only on industrial analysis or a scenery narrowly-ring, although these factors has been incarnated day-after-day in work of managers.
Moreover, seeing the impact they have created on each other and the specific importance of the alternatives for a correct decision-making. While in the group of extern factors of the organization, we can say that the most important factors that have the greatest weight are: risk and uncertainty [91] these two factors that accompany managerial decision-making. The risk refers to the government's policies [92] and the stability of the government in general where through various changes in laws and administrative instructions it is creating a stalemate which is turning Kosovar businesses into a circle of risk [93] and small opportunities for operation, especially small businesses and businesses startups which are not creating a real policy of support and expansion.
And the part of uncertainty [94] which is an element of market change due to supply and demand which is changing the competition, but also increasing the rivalry [95] between firms, which at the same time is reducing the rationality of making a clear, safe decision, based on conditions where we have higher intensity and rivalry in the industry with new entrants and increased concentration of substitutes.
The results obtained by the organizations and that the biggest struggle turns it into a competition between them based on the results of the comprehensive competitive context to which strategic alternatives such as horizontal integration, before and after the response focusing on product quality, focusing on furniture sustainable, sustainable distributor, increasing the mobility of creative power and innovation, creating product diversity, expanding in current markets and creating presence in new markets and developing new products in new markets.
Proven, the risk is one of the most concerning factor for leaders [96], producing situations of changes in the market and price policy movements [97]. As presented in the analyzes made, the risk utilized as a terminology of price movements and diverse policies and closely related to the political-economic environment is the most important factor that managers refer to and focus on when making decisions.
Moreover, other factors are ranked as importantly in the process of making decisions such as: uncertainty around organization, market dynamics and turbulence in the market.
Uncertainty around the organization is one of the clearest determinants that has influenced the process of decision-making [98, 99] since the executives, owners or leaders of organizations always have a dose of doubt, not completely sure, confusion and wrapped-up with “foggy” situation which variant should make decisions although they are always based on the aspect of internative and externative analysis to act with a variant as a decision. Furthermore, this factor is interconnected to the market dynamics where the exponential empowerment of new entrance can cause an inappropriate and confuse situation to analyze the managerial surround as before. This can offer to the leaders a special impetus on how to react and adapt with these changes.
Whereas, when they harmonize with the turbulence that follows and causes different effects in the producing new movements and challenges that can reveals ambiguity [100] for the organizations. New movements that specifically aiming to the changes in the manufacturing production process, new skills and knowledge for creating innovations, production technology, creativity and new practices that lead to competitive advantage. It is required continuously scanning the organization's external environment in a systematic way so that it constantly remains readable and clearly translatable in terms of adaptation, also managers must constantly pay attention because from time-to-time the environment produces changes. The problem of unknowing clearly the extern organization factors can also create limitations in research, so managerial craftsmanship based on experience can be a good solution to changes.
The problem of unknowing clearly the extern organization factors of can also create limitations in research, even worse it can cause ambiguous management, chaotic and absolutely stuck behind the competition, so managerial craftsmanship based on experience can be a good solution against changes. Based on this, it is recommended in future researches to use other analysis packages such as MCDM, DSS, etc., or models and techniques such as: simulacrums, stochastic and heuristic which can further develop the analysis of relationships between organization environment and organization itself in order to draw even clearer conclusions for managers, that may serve as a practical approach.
Special acknowledgment is dedicated to all organizations in the Republic of Kosovo which enabled the concretization by providing all the necessary information about this research.
|
EOF |
Externative Organizational Factors |
|
IE |
Internal-External |
|
EFE |
Externative Factor Evaluation |
|
IFE |
Internative Factor Evaluation |
|
CSF |
Correlational Field Study |
|
AHP |
Analytical Hierarchy Process |
|
DM |
Decision Making |
|
SEM |
Structural Equation Model |
|
CI |
Consistency Index |
[1] Duncan, W. (1989). Lack: Great Ideas in Management. Josey-Bass Publisher. San Francisko-London. ISBN: 978-1555421229
[2] Davenport, T.H. (2009). Make better decisions. Harvard Business Review, 87(11): 117-123.
[3] Elezaj, E., Shabani, H., Kuqi, B., Tan Hung, N. (2023). Managerial decision-making (DM) in Kosovo organizations based on SPACE model analysis by using AHP fuzzy method. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 13(1): 248-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.1891786
[4] De Geus, A.P. (1988). Planning as Learning. March/April: Harvard Business Review. eBook ISBN9781315253336
[5] Dean Jr, J.W., Sharfman, M.P. (1993). Procedural rationality in the strategic decision-making process. Journal of Management Studies, 30(4): 587-610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1993.tb00317.x
[6] Smith, K.G., Grimm, C.M. (1987). Environmental variation, strategic change and firm performance: A study of railroad deregulation. Strategic Management Journal, 8(4): 363-376. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250080406
[7] Haveman, H.A. (1992). Between a rock and a hard place: Organizational change and performance under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1): 48-75. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393533
[8] Cameron, K.S., Sutton, R.I., Whetten, D.A. (1988). Readings in Organizational Decline: Research, and Prescriptions. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. ISBN: 978-0887302701
[9] Ginsberg, A. (1988). Measuring and modelling changes in strategy: Theoretical foundations and empirical directions. Strategic Management Journal, 9(6): 559-575. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250090604
[10] Deephouse, D.L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2): 147-166. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2% 3C147::AID-SMJ11%3E3.0.CO;2-Q
[11] Deephouse, D.L., Jaskiewicz, P. (2013). Do family firms have better reputations than non-family firms? An integration of socioemotional wealth and social identity theories. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3): 337-360. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12015
[12] Monteverde, K., Teece, D.J. (1982). Supplier switching costs and vertical integration in the automobile industry. The Bell Journal of Economics, 13(1): 206-213. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003441
[13] Hannan, M.T., Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2): 149-164. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095567
[14] Hannan, M.T., Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational Ecology. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjz813k
[15] Chakravarthy, B.S. (1982). Adaptation: A promising metaphor for strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 7(1): 35-44. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1982.4285438
[16] Gioia, D.A., Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6): 433-448. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604
[17] Bartunek, J.M., Gordon, J.R., Weathersby, R.P. (1983). Developing “complicated” understanding in administrators. Academy of Management Review, 8(2): 273-284. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1983.4284737
[18] Daft, R.L., Weick, K.E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 284-295. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277657
[19] Anderson, C.R., Paine, F.T. (1975). Managerial perceptions and strategic behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4): 811-823. https://doi.org/10.5465/255380
[20] Weick, K.E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California Management Review, 29(2): 112-127. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165243
[21] Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN: 978-0803971776
[22] Weick, K. (1977). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4): 305-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00039.x
[23] Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention. Organization Science, 17(4): 514-524. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0196
[24] Weick, K.E., Roberts, K.H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3): 357-381. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393372
[25] Barr, P.S., Stimpert, J.L., Huff, A.S. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1): 15-36. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250131004
[26] Hall, R.I. (1984). The natural logic of management policy making: Its implications for the survival of an organization. Management Science, 30(8): 905-927. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.8.905
[27] Hambrick, D.C. (1982). Environmental scanning and organizational strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 3(2): 159-174. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250030207
[28] Hambrick, D.C., Cannella Jr, A.A. (1993). Relative standing: A framework for understanding departures of acquired executives. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4): 733-762. https://doi.org/10.5465/256757
[29] Hamel, G., Prahalad, C.K. (1994). Competing for the future. Harvard business review, 72(4): 122-128.
[30] Greenwood, R., Hinings, C.R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1022-1054. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9704071862
[31] Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5): 371-385. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140505
[32] Grimm, C.M., Lee, H., Smith, K.G., Smith, K.G. (Eds.). (2006). Strategy as Action: Competitive Dynamics and Competitive Advantage. Oxford University Press on Demand. ISBN: 9780195161441
[33] Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4): 619-652. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393756
[34] Van de Ven, A.H., Poole, M.S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying organizational change. Organization Studies, 26(9): 1377-1404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605056907
[35] Ginsberg, A. (1994). Minding the competition: From mapping to mastery. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1): 153-174. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150911
[36] De Geus, A. (1997). The living company. Harvard Business Review, 75(2): 51-59. PMID: 10165449
[37] Radder, L., Louw, L. (1998). The SPACE matrix: A tool for calibrating competition. Long Range Planning, 31(4): 549-559. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(98)80048-4
[38] Davenport, T.H. (2006). Competing on analytics. Harvard Business Review, 84(1): 98-107. PMID: 16447373
[39] Larsson, R., Finkelstein, S. (1999). Integrating strategic, organizational, and human resource perspectives on mergers and acquisitions: A case survey of synergy realization. Organization Science, 10(1): 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.1.1
[40] Lawrence, P.R., Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Organization and Environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, Division of Research. ISBN: 0875841295
[41] Laursen, G., Thorlund, J. (2010). Business Analytics for Managers: Taking Business Intelligence Beyond Reporting, 2nd Edition. ISBN: 978-1-119-29858-8
[42] Holsapple, C., Lee-Post, A., Pakath, R. (2014). A unified foundation for business analytics. Decision Support Systems, 64: 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.05.013
[43] Wiggins, R.R., Ruefli, T.W. (2005). Schumpeter's ghost: Is hypercompetition making the best of times shorter?. Strategic Management Journal, 26(10): 887-911. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.492
[44] Wall Jr, J.A., Callister, R.R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21(3): 515-558. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100306
[45] Urli, B., Nadeau, R. (1999). Evolution of multi‐criteria analysis: A scientometric analysis. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 8(1): 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199901) 8:1%3C31::AID-MCDA222%3E3.0.CO;2-1
[46] Mitroff, I.I., Mason, R.O. (1981). The metaphysics of policy and planning: A reply to Cosier. Academy of Management Review, 6(4): 649-651. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1981.4285721
[47] Knight, H.F. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Sentry Press, New York. ISBN: 1614276390
[48] Machina, M.J. (1987). Choice under uncertainty: Problems solved and unsolved. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1(1): 121-154. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.1.1.121
[49] March, J.G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2): 587-608. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003600
[50] Warren, K. (1999). The dynamics of strategy. Business Strategy Review, 10(3): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8616.00107
[51] Weyer, E., Bell, G., Lee, P.L. (1999). System identification for generic model control. Journal of Process Control, 9(4): 357-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-1524(98)00050-X
[52] Yager, R.R. (1992). Second order structures in multi-criteria decision making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36(4): 553-570. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(92)90096-4
[53] Yager, R.R. (1999). Decision making with fuzzy probability assessments. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 7(4): 462-467. https://doi.org/10.1109/91.784209
[54] Merigó, J.M., Gil-Lafuente, A.M. (2010). New decision-making techniques and their application in the selection of financial products. Information Sciences, 180(11): 2085-2094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2010. 01.028
[55] Merigó, J.M., Gil-Lafuente, A.M. (2013). Induced 2-tuple linguistic generalized aggregation operators and their application in decision-making. Information Sciences, 236: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.02.039
[56] Von Clausewitz, C. (1911). On War. New and Revised edition. Kegan Paul, Trench, Tru¨ber and Co, London. ISBN 0-691-05657-9
[57] Wack, P. (1985). Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead. Harvard Business Review, 63(5): 72-89. PMID: 85516
[58] Lippman, S.A., Rumelt, R.P. (1982). Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. The Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2): 418-438. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003464
[59] Mahoney, J.T., Pandian, J.R. (1992). The resource‐based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5): 363-380. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250130505
[60] Kunc, M.H., Morecroft, J.D. (2007). Competitive dynamics and gaming simulation: Lessons from a fishing industry simulator. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(9): 1146-1155. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602246
[61] Hunger, J.D., Wheelen, T. (2003). Essentials of Strategic Management. 3th Edition, 2003, Publisher Pearson.
[62] Zulaikha dan Fredianto, R. (2003). Hubungan Antara Lingkungan Eksternal, Orientasi Strategik dan Kinerja Perusahaan (Studi Empiris pd Industri Manufaktur Menengah-Kecil di Kota Semarang). Jurnal Ekonomi Dan Bisnis (JEBI) Fakultas Ekonomi UNDIP Semarang., 6(1).
[63] Phillips, P., Moutinho, L. (2018). Contemporary Issues in Strategic Management (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315674827
[64] Milliken, F.J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 12(1): 133-143. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4306502
[65] Child, J., Smith, C. (1987). The context and process of organizational transformation-Cadbury limited in its sector. Journal of Management Studies, 24(6): 565-593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1987.tb00464.x
[66] Whittington, R. (2001). What is Strategy and Does it Matter. London: Routledge. ISBN: 978-1861523778.
[67] Wierzbicki, A.P. (1997). On the role of intuition in decision making and some ways of multicriteria aid of intuition. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6(2): 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360 (199703)6:2%3C65::AID-MCDA143%3E3.0.CO;2-Q
[68] Kuqi, B., Elezaj, E., Millaku, B., Dreshaj, A., Hung, N.T. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) in tourism industry: Evidence of Kosovo during Q1, Q2 and Q3 period of 2020. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 13(1): 92-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.1883986
[69] Amatayakul, M., Lazarus, S.S., Walsh, T. (2003). HIPAA compliance: Have you completed a risk analysis? (Digital Perspectives). Healthcare Financial Management, 57(5): 96-99. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A101568772/AONE?u=anon~34c5b867&sid=googleScholar&xid=89720563.
[70] Kubisty, K. (2004). Modeling the future. Best’s Review, 104(10): 90.
[71] Berghel, H. (2005). The two sides of ROI: Return on investment vs. risk of incarceration. Communications of the ACM, 48(4): 15-20. https://doi.org/10.1145/1053291.1053305
[72] Worthington, I. Britton, C. (2015). The Business Environment. 7th edition. London: Pearson. ISBN: 978-0-273-70424-9.
[73] Duncan, R.B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3): 313-327. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392145
[74] Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., Theoret, A. (1976). 'The structure of the 'unstructured' decision processes', Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(2): 246-275. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392045
[75] Aldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and Environments. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. ISBN: 978-0804758291.
[76] Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G. (1978). The External Control of Organizations. Harper & Row: New York. ISBN: 978-0804747899.
[77] Lenz, R.T., Engledow, J.L. (1986). Environmental analysis units and strategic decision‐making: A field study of selected ‘leading‐edge’ corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 7(1): 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250070107
[78] Ranft, A.L., Lord, M.D. (2000). Acquiring new knowledge: The role of retaining human capital in acquisitions of high-tech firms. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 11(2): 295-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(00)00034-1
[79] Warren, R.L. (1967). The interorganizational field as a focus for investigation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(3): 396-419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391312
[80] Jap, S.D. (1999). Pie-expansion efforts: Collaboration processes in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of marketing Research, 36(4): 461-475. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379903600405
[81] Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., Veiga, J.F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5): 646-672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712
[82] Rose, R.C., Abdullah, H., Ismad, A.I. (2010). A review on the relationship between organizational resources, competitive advantage and performance. The Journal of International Social Research, 3: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3923/ibm.2012.286.293
[83] Lindsay, W.M., Rue, L.W. (1980). Impact of the organization environment on the long-range planning process: A contingency view. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3): 385-404. https://doi.org/10.5465/255507
[84] Inmyxai, S., Takahashi, Y. (2009). Firm resources and business performance in the Lao PDR: Implications for SMEs in the LDC context. Journal of Indian Business Research, 1(2/3): 163-187. https://doi.org/10.1108/17554190911005345
[85] Gujarati, D. (2004). Economics - Basic Econometrics. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 978-0070597938
[86] Field, A.P. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: and Sex and Drugs and Rock "n" Roll (3rd Edition). London: Sage. ISBN: 978-1847879073.
[87] Saaty, T.L. (2005). Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications. ISBN: 978-1888603064.
[88] Vargas, L.G. (1982). Reciprocal matrices with random coefficients. Mathematical Modelling, 3(1): 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(82)90013-6
[89] Masuda, T. (1990). Hierarchical sensitivity analysis of the priorities used in analytic hierarchy process. Systems Science, 21(2): 4l5-427. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207729008910371
[90] Yager, R.R. (1992). Second order structures in multi-criteria decision making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36(4): 553-570. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(92)90096-4
[91] Palmer, T.B., Wiseman, R.M. (1999). Decoupling Risk Taking from Income Stream Uncertainty: A Holistic Model of Risk. Strategic Management Journal, 20(11): 1037-1062.
[92] Learned, E.P., Christensen, C.R., Andrews, K.R. Guth, W.D. (1969). Business Policy: Text and cases. Homewood, IL: Irwin. ISBN: 978-0256019896.
[93] Pástor, Ľ., Stambaugh, R.F. (2003). Liquidity risk and expected stock returns. Journal of Political Economy, 111(3): 642-685. https://doi.org/10.1086/374184
[94] Terreberry, S. (1968). The evolution of organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 12(1): 590-613. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391535
[95] Porter, M.E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1): 78-93.
[96] Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Tamošaitiene, J. (2010). Risk assessment of construction projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 16(1): 33-46. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2010.03
[97] Williamson, O. E. (1973). Markets and hierarchies: some elementary considerations. The American Economic Review, 63(2): 316-325. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1817092
[98] Sutcliffe, K.M., Zaheer, A. (1998). Uncertainty in the transaction environment: An empirical test. Strategic Management Journal, 19(1): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199801)19:1%3C1::AID-SMJ938%3E3.0.CO;2-5
[99] Beck, P.W. (1982). Corporate planning for an uncertain future. Long Range Planning, 15(4): 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(82)90087-5
[100] April, K.A., Hill, S. (2000). The uncertainty and ambiguity of leadership in the 21st century. South African Journal of Business Management, 31(2): 45-52. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v31i2.733
