The Influences of Perceived Managerial Discretion and Risk-Taking Behavior on Government Organizational Performance

Purpose: This study investigates pertinent factors in perceived managerial discretion (PMD) in association with risk-taking behavior (RTB) and organizational performance within government organizations. Design/methodology/approach: This study used a mix of qualitative methods—using focus group discussions (FGDs) to select key variables affecting PMD and to validate the research findings—and quantitative methods—using structural equation modeling (SEM) to test eight hypotheses developed from FGDs and from a literature review. Out of 340 questionnaires sent out to potential participants, 260 were returned and deemed valid for SEM analysis, reflecting a satisfactory response rate of 76%. Findings: A total of six factors affecting PMD were identified: quasi-legal constraint (QLC), powerful outside forces (POFs), inertial forces (IFs), powerful inside forces (PIFs), power base (PB), and political acumen (PA). The SEM analysis indicated that QLC, PIF, PB, and PA enhance PMD, while IF tends to inhibit PMD. Stronger PMD was associated with weaker RTB on the part of government-official decision makers, while greater RTB was associated with more positive organizational outcomes. These findings are partially consistent with prior findings, with some notable contradictions. Research implications/limitations: The primary limitation of this study was its limited external validity, as these findings can only be extended to organizations with similar characteristics of those of the government institution used as the case study. These findings must be used with care for different types of public organizations. Practical implications: These findings support taking the following steps: (1) review and remove equivocal regulations that could restrain PMD, (2) streamline bureaucracy, (3) establish regulations that allow more space for innovation and discretion, (4) delineate the tasks and responsibilities of decision makers, and (5) discourage abrupt policy changes, promoting proper scrutiny and notice.     

DNA analysis in perpetrator identification of terrorism-related disaster: Suicide bombing of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta 2004

We report the strategy that we employed to identify the perpetrator of a suicide car bombing in front of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, on 9 September 2004. The bomb was so massive that only small tissue pieces of the perpetrator could be recovered, preventing conventional approach to the identification of the bomber, necessitating the introduction of DNA analysis as the primary means for perpetrator identification. Crime scene investigation revealed the trajectory of the bomb blast, which was used to guide the collection of charred tissue fragments of the perpetrator. Mitochondrial DNA analysis was first conducted on 17 tissue fragments, recovered over large areas of the trajectory to, (a) confirm that they are of a common source, i.e. the perpetrator, and thus (b) establish the mtDNA HV1 sequence profile of the perpetrator. The mtDNA of the perpetrator matches that of a maternally related family member of one of four suspects. Standard autosomal STR analysis confirmed the identification. This case is of interest as an illustration of a successful application of DNA analysis as the primary means of disaster perpetrator identification.     

Choosing Healthplans All Together: a deliberative exercise for allocating limited health care resources

CHAT (Choosing Healthplans All Together) is an exercise in participatory decision making designed to engage the public in health care priority setting. Participants work individually and then in groups to distribute a limited number of pegs on a board as they select from a wide range of insurance options. Randomly distributed health events illustrate the consequences of insurance choices. In 1999-2000, the authors conducted fifty sessions of CHAT involving 592 residents of North Carolina. The exercise was rated highly regarding ease of use, informativeness, and enjoyment. Participants found the information believable and complete, thought the group decision-making process was fair, and were willing to abide by group decisions. CHAT holds promise as a tool to foster group deliberation, generate collective choices, and incorporate the preferences and values of consumers into allocation decisions. It can serve to inform and stimulate public dialogue about limited health care resources.