چکیده:
This study seeks to investigate the phenomenon known as escalation of commitment in public sector organizations. In this phenomenon, decision-makers, despite receiving negative feedback and information about the results of their initial decisions, insist on continuing them. Various theories attempt to explain this phenomenon, which are viewed with two different approaches to this behavior. The first category includes theories that consider this behavior irrational and flawed, and the second considers it rational. In this study, a field analysis was conducted regarding the existence of such behavior in government organizations and the theories that justify it. For this purpose, the Ministry of Commerce was selected as a case study, and a sample of managers from this ministry were selected. A questionnaire whose validity and reliability have been emphasized was provided to the sample, and data were collected. To analyze and test the hypotheses, a linear regression equation was designed appropriate to the subject. The results of the analysis show that self-justification theories, agency, and approach-avoidance are considered justifying factors for the phenomenon of persistence on initial decisions in the Iranian public sector.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The results of the analysis show that self-justification, agency, and approach-avoidance theories justify the phenomenon of persistence on initial decisions in the Iranian public sector.
Keywords: Decision making, commitment persistence behavior, self-justification theory, hope theory, expectation theory, agency theory, approach and avoidance theory, real option theory Article received date: 98/5/7 Final article acceptance date: 98/7/6 Corresponding author: Alireza Pouya Email:alirezapoya@gmail.
From the perspective of AT, the decision-making process is viewed logically from the perspective of individuals, but from the perspective of the organization as a whole, it is irrational and incomplete; therefore, the following hypothesis will be tested: H 4: Agency Theory justifies the behavior of persistence on commitments in the Ministry of Commerce of Iran.
In an approach-avoidance conflict, the decision-maker is forced to weigh positive and negative characteristics more strongly (in order to recognize the need for approach or the need for avoidance) [71]; therefore, the following hypothesis will be tested: H 5: Approach-Avoidance Theory justifies the behavior of persistence on commitments in the Ministry of Commerce of Iran.
Figure 4 - Summary of the results of the relationship between variables in the structural equation model (Refer to the page image) Regarding hypothesis 6, considering the positive attitude of the Prospect Theory towards the phenomenon under investigation and also taking into account that in the present research, the phenomenon of persistence on commitments has been measured with a negative approach, it cannot be tested similarly to other hypotheses.
(
, 
, 
)
