Untitled

Abstract

The main objective of this study is to examine the impact of the decentralization dimensions represented in (goals congruence, autonomy and information asymmetry) on subsidiaries performance. The results have showed that there is a statistically significant impact for both goals congruence and autonomy on subsidiaries performance, whereas there is no statistically significant impact for information asymmetry on subsidiaries performance. In the light of the results, some conclusions were drawn, most importantly is that the increased awareness of the managers in subsidiaries by creating a kind of consistency or integration between objectives. Autonomy is an important factor that influences on performance, pointing to the degree of managers' freedom in making managerial decisions. The exchange of information between the subsidiaries within the same group is not considered as a basic requirement for disclosure. Based on conclusions, the study recommends to increase coordination between the objectives of the Organization to create a kind of partnership in achieving the objectives, increase the degree of freedom of management at the lower levels in decision-making, and focus on the quality of information disclosure within the organization.

The process of decentralization through mobile instant messaging (MIM): a case study of event management in an organization

“…The use of technology also avoided the need to alter the roles and functions of the committee members (Hales, 1999). They were still able to deliver their original tasks and functions but with more flexibility in decision-making (Tarawneh, 2019; Nilles, 1975; Dadashpoor and Yousefi, 2018). In addition, decentralization also help employees in efficiency improvement by decreasing employees’ overload, thus enabling them to improve their task management (Ribot, 2002; Silverman, 1992).…”

“…The study found a simultaneous relationship between fiscal decentralization, corruption and income inequality. Finally, previous studies also highlighted the outcomes of decentralization (Tarawneh, 2019;Conyers, 2007;Johnson and Leenders, 2004;Ribot, 2002;Hales, 1999;Kolehmainen-Aitken, 1998;Silverman, 1992;Conyers, 1990;). These studies highlighted the impact of decentralization on individuals, groups, or institutions.…”

“…New positions may emerge, while those in the existing position may have to embrace new obligations. When JSIT 24,4 more autonomy is given to lower-level employees, their decision-making flexibility increases (Tarawneh, 2019). The second theme of decentralization studies is process.…”

“…Here, both parties happily shared the authority and responsibility in ensuring the smooth running of the event. It alters the roles and functions of the lower-level employees (Hales, 1999) where more autonomy is given to them (Tarawneh, 2019).…”

Decentralization of South Eastern Nigeria’s Local Governments and Achievement of Mandates Enshrined in Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution

“…The more decentralized the governance of a country is the more efficiently responsive it would be in terms of providing the needs of its citizenry (Tarawneh, 2019). The decentralization approach that may be adopted by different countries is substantially cited among theorists as a major factor that determines the efficiency or inefficiency of any tier of governments (Crook & Manor, 2000;Jean-Paul, 2004.…”