Data Envelopment Analysis and non-discretionary inputs : How to select the most suitable model using multi-criteria decision analysis

Within Data Envelopment Analysis, several alternative models allow for an environmental adjustment. The majority of them deliver divergent results. Decision makers face the difficult task of selecting the most suitable model. This study is performed to overcome this difficulty. By doing so, it fills a research gap. First, a two-step web-based survey is conducted. It aims (1) to identify the selection criteria, (2) to prioritize and weight the selection criteria with respect to the goal of selecting the most suitable model and (3) to collect the preferences about which model is preferable to fulfil each selection criterion. Second, Analytic Hierarchy Process is used to quantify the preferences expressed in the survey. Results show that the understandability, the applicability and the acceptability of the alternative models are valid selection criteria. The selection of the most suitable model depends on the preferences of the decision makers with regards to these criteria.

Leader corruption depends on power and testosterone

We used incentivized experimental games to manipulate leader power-the number of followers and the discretion leaders had to enforce their will. Leaders had complete autonomy in deciding payouts to themselves and their followers. Although leaders could make prosocial decisions to benefit the public good they could also abuse their power by invoking antisocial decisions, which reduced the total payouts to the group but increased leader's earnings. In Study 1 (N = 478), we found that both amount of followers and discretionary choices independently predicted leader corruption. In Study 2 (N = 240), we examined how power and individual differences (e.g., personality, hormones) affected leader corruption over time; power interacted with testosterone in predicting corruption, which was highest when leader power and baseline testosterone were both high. Honesty predicted initial level of leader antisocial decisions; however, honesty did not shield leaders from the corruptive effect of power.