Assessing the accuracy of evaluations for managerial positions prone to corruption risks

• Autorzy: Závadský Ján , Osvaldová Zuzana , Závadská Zuzana , Hiadlovský Vladimír , Bujda Pavol

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.17512/pjms.2025.31.2.18

Warianty tytułu

PL

Ocena dokładności ocen stanowisk kierowniczych narażonych na ryzyko korupcji

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This article aims to evaluate the accuracy of two distinct methodologies-the multi-criteria (MC) approach and the process-based (PB) approach—for assessing corruption risks in managerial job positions within ISO 37001-certified organizations. Unlike prior research, this study is the first to directly compare these methods using standardized risk scales, allowing for a quantitative assessment of their accuracy. The PB approach analyzes critical decision-making activities, while the MC method uses predefined weighted criteria. The study calculated a Job Position Corruption Risk Number (JPCRN) under both methods and introduced a novel accuracy metric (ΔJPi) representing the difference between them. Although the MC method provides acceptable overall accuracy (average ΔJPi = 0.16), it becomes less reliable when organizations have very few or many high-risk positions. The findings underscore that organizations with elevated corruption risk profiles need to adopt a more precise PB method.

PL

Celem niniejszego artykułu jest ocena dokładności dwóch odrębnych metodologii - podejścia wielokryterialnego (MC) i podejścia opartego na procesach (PB) - służących do oceny ryzyka korupcji na stanowiskach kierowniczych w organizacjach posiadających certyfikat ISO 37001. W przeciwieństwie do wcześniejszych badań, niniejsze opracowanie jest pierwszym, w którym bezpośrednio porównano te metody przy użyciu standardowych skal ryzyka, co pozwoliło na ilościową ocenę ich dokładności. Podejście PB analizuje krytyczne działania decyzyjne, natomiast metoda MC wykorzystuje z góry określone kryteria ważone. W ramach badania obliczono wskaźnik ryzyka korupcji na stanowisku pracy (JPCRN) dla obu metod i wprowadzono nową miarę dokładności (ΔJPi) reprezentującą różnicę między nimi. Chociaż metoda MC zapewnia akceptowalną ogólną dokładność (średnia ΔJPi = 0,16), staje się ona mniej wiarygodna, gdy organizacje mają bardzo mało lub bardzo wiele stanowisk wysokiego ryzyka. Wyniki podkreślają, że organizacje o podwyższonym ryzyku korupcji powinny przyjąć bardziej precyzyjną metodę PB.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

managerial job positions; corruption risks; process-based approach; multi-criteria approach; accuracy rate

PL

stanowiska kierownicze; ryzyko korupcji; podejście oparte na procesach; podejście wielokryterialne; wskaźnik dokładności

• Wydawca: Czestochowa University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Management Studies
• Rocznik: 2025
• Tom: Vol. 31, No. 2
• Strony: 288--305
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 34 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Závadský Ján

• Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4773-3290

autor

Osvaldová Zuzana

• Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8932-3396

autor

Závadská Zuzana

• Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4808-8585

autor

Hiadlovský Vladimír

• Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7800-7083

autor

Bujda Pavol

• Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia

• https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1679-9216

Bibliografia

• 1.Akbar, Y. H., Vujic, V., (2014). Explaining corruption, the role of national culture, and its implications for international management. Cross Cultural Management-an International Journal, 21(2), 191-218.
• 2.Aponte, W. I. G., (2019). An approximation to the "corruption risk" in the public procurement. A&C-Revista De Direito Administrativo & Constitucional, 19(75), 39-64.
• 3.Ashyrov, G., (2020). Role of managerial traits in firm-level corruption: evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27(1), 52-72.
• 4.Belhaiza, S., Charrad, S. and M'Hallah, R., (2022). On the impact of corruption on managers' and controllers' behavior. Rairo-operations Research, 56(1), 165-181.
• 5.Budak, J., Rajh, E., Slijepcevic, S. and Maloca, M., (2023). Corruption Pressure on Business Revisited: Bribery Incidence in European Countries. Ekonomski Vjesnik, 36(1), 15-30.
• 6.Cardoni, A., Kiseleva, E. and De Luca, F., (2020). Continuous auditing and data mining for strategic risk control and anticorruption: Creating "fair" value in the digital age. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 3072-3085.
• 7.Charron, N., Dahlström, C., Fazekas, M. and Lapuente, V., (2017). Careers, Connections, and Corruption Risks: Investigating the Impact of Bureaucratic Meritocracy on Public Procurement Processes. Journal of Politics, 79(1), 89-104.
• 8.Dankiewicz, R., Ostrowska-Dankiewicz, A., Pasternak-Malicka M., and Jiang, W., (2024). Risk Management Practices in SMEs: Evidence from Poland. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 30(2), 91-108.
• 9.Decarolis, F., Giorgiantonio, C., (2022). Corruption red flags in public procurement: new evidence from Italian calls for tenders. EPJ Data Science, 11(1), 16.
• 10.Ennouri, W., (2013). Risks management: new literature review. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 9(8), 288-297.
• 11.Fazekas, M., Tóth, I. J. and King, L. P., (2016). An Objective Corruption Risk Index Using Public Procurement Data. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22(3), 369-397.
• 12.Fazekas, M., Kocsis, G., (2020). Uncovering High-Level Corruption: Cross-National Objective Corruption Risk Indicators Using Public Procurement Data. British Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 155-164.
• 13.Hazy, J. K., Lichtenstein, B. B., Demetis, D. S., Backström, T. and Dooley, K. J., (2023). Value Sinks: A Process Theory of Corruption Risk during Complex Organizing. Supply Chain Management, 27(3), 319-350.
• 14.Hermann, D., Pohlmann, M. and Klinkhammer, J., (2019). Limits of formal regulation: How informal norms and criminogenic values affect managers' willingness to corrupt. Monatsschrift fur Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform, 102(2), 104-118.
• 15.Hohn, G. S., Mazzioni, S., Trindade, L. D. and Dal Magro, C. B., (2023). Effects of corruption and national culture on companies' performance in corporate social responsibility. Contabilidade Gestao E Governanca, 26(2), 153-180.
• 16.Kim, S., Wagner, S. M., (2020). Examining the Stock Price Effect of Corruption Risk in the Supply Chain. Decision Sciences, 52(4), 833-865.
• 17.Krishnamurti, C., Shams, S. and Velayutham, E., (2018). Corporate social responsibility and corruption risk: A global perspective. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 14(1), 1-21.
• 18.La Rosa, F., Bernini, F. and Terzani, S., (2022). Does corporate and country corruption risk affect CEO performance? A study of the best-performing CEOs worldwide. European Management Journal, 40(2), 234-246.
• 19.Lisciandra, M., Milani, R. and Millemaci, E., (2022). A corruption risk indicator for public procurement. European Journal of Political Economy, 73(102141).
• 20.Lopatta, K., Jaeschke, R., Tchikov, M. and Lodhia, S., (2017). Corruption, Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Constraints: International Firm-level Evidence. European Management Review, 14(1), 47-65.
• 21.Makhdalena, M., Zulvina, D. and Zulvina, Y., (2021). Anti-Bribery Disclosure Trends Among Mining Sector Stocks Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. Indonesian Journal of Sustainability Accounting and Management, 5(2), 279-290.
• 22.Méan, J. P., Gehring, H., (2018). Implementing ISO 37001 to Manage Your Bribery Risks. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 13(5), 191-197.
• 23.Monteduro, F., Cecchetti, I., Lai, Y. I. and Allegrini, V., (2020). Does stakeholder engagement affect corruption risk management? Journal of Management and Governance, 25(3), 759-785.
• 24.Ntayi, J. M., Ngoboka, P. and Kakooza, C. S., (2013). Moral schemas and corruption in Ugandan public procurement. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 417-436.
• 25.Pogozhina, I. N., Sergeeva, M. V., (2021). The Logical Component of Thinking as a Predictor of Decision-Making about the Presence of Corruption Risk in Business Interaction Situations. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 42(6), 25-34.
• 26.Schwartz, B., Tilling, K., (2009). Organizational context: a dissenting interpretation of ISO 26000. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16(5), 289-299.
• 27.Sharma, S. K., Sengupta, A. and Panja, S. C., (2019). Mapping Corruption Risks in Public Procurement: Uncovering Improvement Opportunities and Strengthening Controls. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(4), 947-975.
• 28.Vasconcelos, M. O., Cavique, L., (2022). Dataset for corruption risk assessment in a public administration. Data in Brief, 40(107768).
• 29.Velasco, R. B., Carpanese, I., Interian, R., Neto, O. C. G. P. and Ribeiro, C. C., (2020). A decision support system for fraud detection in public procurement. International Transactions in Operational Research, 28(1), 27-47.
• 30.Veselovská, L., Závadsky, J. and Závadská, Z., (2020). Mitigating bribery risks to strengthen the corporate social responsibility in accordance with the ISO 37001. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4), 1972-1988.
• 31.Vu, N.H., Bui, T.A., Nguyen, N.M. and Luu, N.H., (2021). Local business environment, managerial expertise and tax corruptionof small- and medium-sized enterprises. Baltic Journal of Economics, 21(2), 134-157.
• 32.Werner, A., Rabl, T. and Best, H., (2019). Managers' corruption prevention efforts in small and medium-sized enterprises: An Exploration of Determinants. European Management Review, 16(3), 741-759.
• 33.Wu, W. Y., Huang, C. H., (2013). Motives and likelihood of bribery: an experimental study of managers in Taiwan. Ethics & Behavior, 23(4), 278-298.
• 34.Yanishevska, K., Denysenko, S., Savchuk, V., Krysko, A. and Horb, A., (2023). Corruption risks in the provision of administrative services. Amazonia Investiga, 12(64), 217-227.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa nr POPUL/SP/0154/2024/02 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki II" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki (2025).