Decision Making Under Stress: An Exploratory Study in Lebanon

Abstract

Nowadays, balancing work and family is getting more demanding, finding time for oneself is difficult, and the
demands of work are overwhelming; life is becoming more stressful. Stress has become one of the factors that decision makers must contend with in most life-or-death situations. In business, stress can be detrimental to the success of managers when making key decisions. This paper presents an exploratory study on the effect of stress on decision makers. It focuses on the impact of stress throughout the decision-making process and not only at the time of decision. It also highlights the importance of mitigating stress in order to reach an effective decision. The impact of stress is studied from two perspectives, one of the decision makers themselves and another of their subordinates. The findings of the research give a holistic view on stress and its impact on decision makers, and an insight into business stress mitigation strategies. The research adopts a quantitative approach where data is gathered from different conveniently selected employees, through survey questionnaires that are used to gather insight into the employees’ perception of managers’ performance under stress. Detailed results of the survey questionnaires are stated and are analyzed using the software SPSS for quantitative data. This research suggests that a better understanding of the interplay between stress and an individual's judgment and decision-making activities may yield a better understanding of how people reach the choices they make under stress.

Full text

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
1
Decision Making Under Stress: An Exploratory Study in Lebanon
Hussin J. Hejase 1*
•
Bassam Hamdar 2
•
Fadi Hashem 3
•
Remi Bou Sleiman 2
1 Faculty of Business Administration, Al Maaref University, Beirut, Lebanon
2 Faculty of Business and Economics, American University of Science and Technology, Beirut, Lebanon
3 Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, Doha, Qatar
hhejase@mu.edu.lb
Abstract: Nowadays, balancing work and family is getting more demanding, finding time for oneself is difficult, and the
demands of work are overwhelming; life is becoming more stressful. Stress has become one of the factors that decision-
makers must contend with in most life-or-death situations. In business, stress can be detrimental to the success of managers
when making key decisions. This paper presents an exploratory study on the effect of stress on decision makers. It focuses
on the impact of stress throughout the decision-making process and not only at the time of decision. It also highlights the
importance of mitigating stress in order to reach an effective decision. The impact of stress is studied from two perspectives,
one of the decision makers themselves and another of their subordinates. The findings of the research give a holistic view on
stress and its impact on decision makers, and an insight into business stress mitigation strategies. The research adopts a
quantitative approach where data is gathered from different conveniently selected employees, through survey questionnaires
that are used to gather insight into the employees’ perception of managers’ performance under stress. Detailed results of the
survey questionnaires are stated and are analyzed using the software SPSS for quantitative data. This research suggests that
a better understanding of the interplay between stress and an individual's judgment and decision-making activities may yield
a better understanding of how people reach the choices they make under stress.
To cite this article
[Hejase, H. J., Hamdar, B., Hashem, F., & Bou Sleiman, R. (2017). Decision Making Under Stress: An Exploratory Study
in Lebanon. The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences, 3(12), 1-16]. (P-ISSN 2412- 9763) - (e-ISSN 2412-
8937). www.jomenas.org. 1
Keywords: Decision Making, Stress, Management, Lebanon.
1. Introduction:
Stress seems to be part of life these days.
Individuals committed to their jobs are finding it difficult
to balance work and family demands, and to find time for
oneself; individuals feel that the demands of work are
overwhelming. All persons experience good (or desirable)
stress and/or bad (undesirable) stress – without the good
stress in one’s life that stimulates and challenges a person
to work harder and do his/her best, he/she would be
unmotivated, and would feel bored (Greenberg and Baron,
2008); bad stress can literally kill the person (Kendall,
Murphy, O’Neill, and Bursnall (2000, p. 5). According to
Oxford Brooks University (2012), “not all stress is bad.
Every person functions best and feels best at his/her own
optimal level of physiological arousal. One needs some
stress to get everyday things done. Too little can lead to
boredom and "rust out" - but too much can produce ‘burn
out’” (Para 2).
Stress is one of the factors that decision-makers
must contend with in most life-or-death situations.
Previous studies on the relationship between stress and
decision making yielded conflicting results. Some studies
have indicated that the unorganized and inefficient
approach to making decisions under stress yields to
deficient decisions and outcomes (Johnston, Driskell, &
Salas, 1997, p. 614); however, not all reactions to stress are
the same (Kassam, Koslov and Mendes, 2009, p. 1394).
In business, stress may be considered a key
determinant that leads managers to make successful or
unsuccessful key decisions. Hansen (2016) asserts that
research studies have “confirmed that workplace stress is,
by far, the major source of stress for American adults, and
it has been escalating during the last several decades” (Para
2). She adds that in “a 2007 nationwide poll by the
American Psychological Association, more than half of
those surveyed indicated that their work productivity
suffered due to stress; almost half stated that they did not
use their allotted vacation time and even considered
looking for a new job because of stress” (Para 3).
Making decisions is inherent in the managers’ job
description. Though many of these decisions are minor,
some are very significant, such as starting a project or
hiring an employee; in addition, “Made well, good
decisions become the foundation of personal advancement;

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
2
made poorly, they can end an otherwise promising career”
(Useem, Cook, & Sutton, 2005, p. 462).
This paper explores the impact of stress on decision
makers and the subordinates’ perception and evaluation of
decision makers’ performance in selected organizations in
the Lebanese market. The analysis presented is based on
previous research done on the topic or similar topics. In
order to gather information on this matter, field work and
literature review have been conducted. Fieldwork includes
survey questionnaires given to the subordinates of
managers.
2. Literature Review:
This section provides an exposition of different
views, definitions, approaches and factors that lead to
stress, as well as a description of decision-making under
stress theories; characteristics that are necessary to build
the theoretical foundation of this research.
Mxenge, Dywili and Bazana (2014) assert in their
research that many theories related to stress have been
developed over the years; “These theories provide
comprehensive frameworks and help us gain a better
understanding of stress” (p. 14). Oosthuizen and Van Lill
(2008) state that the stress-related theories have a common
characteristic in that they all explain stress as “a dynamic
process operating between an individual and his/her
environment” (p. 64). In this paper, stress is defined as “a
process by which certain work demands evoke an appraisal
process in which perceived demands exceed resources and
result in undesirable physiological, emotional, cognitive
and social changes” (Salas et al., 1996, p.6, cited in
Kowalski-Trakofler, Vaught, & Scharf, 2003, p. 279).
Greenberg (2011) contends that stress is an
unavoidable fact of life today, and takes its toll on both the
organization and the individual. Some researchers contend
that stress is a result or product of the relationship between
the environment and the individual (Gatchel & Schultz,
2012). Others argue that the power and authority of the
aforementioned transaction depend on the process of the
appraisal which binds the person and the environment; to
yet others, this appraisal depends on what people think and
do in a stressful encounter (Mxenge et al., p. 14). The said
appraisal can be defined as the process that offers a causal
bridge to the distinct emotions that best define the nature
of stress (Dewe, O’Driscoll & Cooper, 2012). Moreover,
Kowalski-Trakofler, Vaught, & Scharf, (2003), in their
paper, assert the impact of stressful conditions on the
managers’ judgment. The writers discuss the critical level
of the decisions made at the beginning of work
emergencies and uncertain events. “Those decisions are
essential in the mitigation of damages, control of costs, and
management of the outcomes of the emergency overall” (p.
278). Multiple academics have also tackled the subject of
making business decisions under stress. To Johnston et al.,
(1997) decision making under stress follows one of two
patterns: the vigilant or the hyper-vigilant patterns. A
vigilant pattern is a systematic approach to search for
information characterized by considering all decision
alternatives, committing resources to evaluate each
alternative, and by reviewing the data before making the
decision (Janis & Mann, 1977, cited in Johnston et al.,
1997, p. 614). In contrast, Johnston et al., contend that “a
hyper-vigilant pattern is a nonsystematic approach
characterized by a limited search of information and
alternatives, limited resources, and limited review of data
before making the decision” (p. 614). However, recently
Yu (2016) posts in his literature review a different manner
to look at the aforementioned patterns. He reports that
“there are two routes to making decisions: a fast route
labeled System 1 based on judgment and a slow route
labeled System 2 based on decision-making process.
System 1 operates quickly and automatically with little
effort. It activates our innate and instinctive responses to
stimuli. Such genetically hard-wired responses can
enhance our ability to cope with vital environmental
challenges of the type experienced during most of human
history. Prolonged practice and experience also produce
involuntary actions or habits. On the other hand, System 2
runs slowly and in an effortful manner, requiring complex
computation” (p. 84). Comparing both systems, System 2
is thought to be an evolutionarily more recent system and
can flexibly check, modify, and override the decisions from
System 1.
3. Top Management Decision Making Under Stress:
Useem, Cook, and Sutton (2005) discuss the
importance of developing leaders who are able to make
business decisions under stress. Leadership decisions are
defined by the authors as “the choice chosen by leaders
ahead of other choices in the course of opportunities that
lead to the achievement of the objectives of an enterprise”
(pp. 462-464). They mention that decisions made by
leaders are of high significance as they have an impact on
people and the enterprise as a whole and that there are
“attributes that characterize decision making leaders.
These are summarized into four major attributes: strategic
thinking, mobilization of resources, execution of strategy,
and selflessness” (pp. 462-464).
Furthermore, Useem et al. discuss how to improve
leadership decisions since improving these decisions not
only improves the outcome of the enterprise but also
improves the said decision making attributes. Leadership
decisions can be improved by designing good incentive and
compensation programs, providing training and
development to decision makers and decision-making
team, and empowering decision-making team members.
They state that all organizations want their leaders to make
optimal decisions; however, many managers and leaders
fall into trap decisions and make suboptimal decisions
(ibid, p. 465).

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
3
Ganster (2005) discusses the demands entailed by
the executive, usually holding a leadership position. He
states that such a job demands stressful decision making; a
process whereby he/she validates “the impact of stress on
decision making and how executive job demands should be
conceptualized and measured” (p. 492). He mentions that
stress affects individuals’ ability to cognitively appraise
environmental challenges and conditions, and the ability to
cope with these challenges and conditions. Furthermore, he
states that previous research had two explanations on the
afore-stated statement; “one states that high job demands
produce a group of physiological and psychological
responses and the other, supported by himself, states that
high job demands simply reflect high task difficulty
responses” (ibid, p. 493).
Making strategic decisions is the most critical
component of an executive’s job. Though executive
decisions usually have very important consequences,
executives must make decisions of high quality regardless
of the situations and conditions they face, knowing that
executives making decisions under stress in limited time
and resources or uncertainty may be forced to narrow their
alternatives. This may result in some alternatives and
evidence cues that are not to be overlooked while making
the decision, for this may jeopardize the quality and
effectiveness of the decision made. Ganster (2005)
suggests that prioritization when facing limited time and
high overload pressure when making a decision is an
extremely effective and important strategy. Prior research
also proved that executives can follow other effective
strategies to make effective decisions when faced with time
pressure and information overload. These strategies
include doing what the executive knows best and imitating
what other firms do (ibid, pp. 494-496). Ganster concludes
that “there is insufficient evidence that stress impacts the
quality of the decision made. However, he states that the
evidence on the impact of stress on the procedure and
process of decision making is highly visible and sufficient”
(ibid, p. 497).
4. Role of Intuition:
According to Yu (2016; citing Cannon, 1914), “the
evolutionary perspective on stress posits that the stress
response has been shaped by natural selection to increase
the ability of organisms to cope with situations that require
action or defense” (p. 85). Further, “when organisms are
faced with possible damage or a loss of resources and a
“fight-or-flight” response is required, they can express
protective features that allow them to survive adverse
conditions and help them mitigate the harmful effects of
environmental stresses (Nesse and Young, 2000; cited in
Yu, 2016, p. 85).
Yu (2016) asserts that “based on the evolutionary
accounts of stress and the dual-system theories of judgment
and decision making, it is reasonable to predict that stress
promotes evolutionarily rooted intuitive responses in
System 1. These intuitive responses are fast and require
fewer cognitive resources to execute than in System 2. In
normal situations, the intuition system may initiate some
default action tendency and the reasoning system checks
whether such a tendency is compatible with the current
goals and environment. That is, intuition proposes first and
reasoning decides whether to approve or to modify it.
When under stress, the reasoning system may not check
these response tendencies and instead allow individuals to
rely on these rigid default actions in response to
environmental challenges” (pp. 85-86).
Earlier, Dane and Pratt (2007) had discussed the role
of intuition in making managerial decisions when under
stress. They discussed the impact intuition has on making
quick decisions of high quality that include a high level of
uncertainty and risk. The authors posit that a manager’s
intuition is an integral and significant part of his/her
decision-making process, and the completion of highly
complex tasks with short time horizons. Based on previous
research, Dane and Pratt contend that strategic decisions
are heavily affected by intuition. Managers rely highly on
their intuition while deciding in which project to invest,
what measures to take when facing a certain crisis, what
evaluation to give when performing performance appraisal,
and what strategy to formulate when undergoing corporate
planning.
The authors emphasize the fact that “the need for
intuition is most present while making decisions under
uncertainty or in organizations facing turbulent
environments and situations” (p. 33). Usually, middle level
managers rely on a quantitative systematic approach to
making decisions and performing tasks; this is called
System 2 by Yu (2016). The transition to senior and
executive level management provides a new challenge
whereby decisions are usually made with high level of
ambiguity and stress, as depicted in System 1 by Yu
(2016). This is where a manager’s intuition and gut feeling
can impact the decisions’ success or failure (Hayashi,
2001, p. 61, cited in Dane & Pratt, 2007, p. 33).
5. Impact of Challenge and Threat States:
Kassam, Koslov, and Mendes (2009) contend that
stress impacts decision making, taking into consideration
the challenge and threat state; “The challenged state is the
state where individuals perceive a situation as demanding
but believe they have enough resources to cope with the
situation. This state is characterized by efficient
cardiovascular reactivity and motivation. While the threat
state is where individuals perceive a situation as
demanding and outweighing resources. This state is
characterized by inefficient cardiovascular reactivity lack
of motivation” (p. 1397-1398).
The first group when challenged showed greater
cognitive adjustment than the second group when found in
a threat state. The authors related these results to the fact
that stress states might have led to differences in mental

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
4
and physical resources, which have, in turn, led to
differences in cognitive adjustment. Furthermore, Kassam
et al. assert that responses to stress have been found to
correlate positively with performance with some, while
others show that performance is hindered by stress. The
authors explain this correlation conflict in response to the
oversimplification of stress. The aforementioned
physiological reactions to the challenge and threat states,
are also explained by Yu (2016; citing Nesse & Young,
2000) who contends that “when organisms are faced with
possible damage or a loss of resources and a “fight-or-
flight” response is required, they can express protective
features that allow them to survive adverse conditions and
help them mitigate the harmful effects of environmental
stresses” (p. 84-85).
Gary Klein (2008) discusses the contributions and
attributes of the Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM)
research approach that is based on fieldwork to discern the
strategies employed by decision makers while making
decisions under tough conditions including limited
resources, limited time, uncertainty, high risk, and
instability. This work enabled the analysis of the responses
of decision makers and has been used as the basis for
decision making and cognitive skills training (pp. 456-
458). Further, Klein discusses the recognition-primed
decision-making model. This model states that decision
makers use their experience to formulate patterns of
decisions. These patterns, according to the model, are the
basis for future decisions to be taken. The model discusses
decision making from two aspects: intuition and analysis.
The intuition is related to the patterns discussed
above while the analysis is related to the mental analysis
and contribution of decision makers in matching and
analyzing the patterns to make the optimal decision. Both
aspects should be considered by decision-makers while
making decisions as the absence of intuition will lead to the
slow process of decision making. This will, in turn, lead to
either the loss of an opportunity or the occurrence of a
threat. In contrast, the absence of analysis will lead to risky
decision making as the lack of pattern identification leads
to the disregarding of important information and previous
experiences (ibid, p. 457).
6. Decision Making Based on Consequences:
Slovic, Peters, Finucane, and MacGregor (2005)
focus on the importance of paying close attention to the
likelihood of potential consequences of decisions made
under stress or uncertainty. The authors state that decision
maker should not only exploit all the technologies and
quantitative techniques available to them at the time of
taking a decision but should also base their decisions on
their judgment of the possible consequences of the
decision. This judgment is heavily linked to the feelings of
decision makers towards the possible risk and benefits of
the perceived decision (pp. 36-38). Along the same line of
research, Dias-Ferreira, Sousa, Melo, Morgado, Mesquita ,
Cerqueira, Costa, and Sousa (2009) stress the importance
of selection of alternatives based on their consequences —
“Decision makers should be goal oriented in order to face
the ever-changing environment and the challenging
conditions they encounter while making key business
decisions. In order to control a decision and monitor its
consequences, a flexible and efficient decision-making
process should be implemented” (p. 621).
Dias-Ferreira et al. (2009) contend that
“optimization of decision-making processes provides an
important advantage in response to a constantly changing
environment. Optimization capitalizes on the ability to
select the appropriate actions on the basis of their
consequences and on needs of the organization at the time
of the decision, allows the decision maker to respond in an
efficient way to changing situations” (p. 625). Moreover,
“when behavior is repeated regularly for extensive periods
without major changes in outcome value or contingency,
or under uncertain situations where one cannot manipulate
the probability of obtaining an outcome, general rules and
habits can be advantageous. Thus, the more rapid shift to
habits after chronic stress [chronic stress biases behavioral
responding to become insensitive to outcome devaluation
(p. 621)] could be a coping mechanism to improve
performance of well-trained behaviors, while increasing
the bioavailability to acquire and process new information,
which seems essential for adaptation to complex
environments” (ibid).
7. The Information-Gap Decision Theory (IGDT):
Duncan, Bras, and Paredis (2006) discuss an
alternative approach to robust decision making under
uncertainty. The authors state that multiple techniques are
available to deal with decision making under uncertainty;
they range from the use of subjective probabilities,
possibility theory, intervals, evidence theory, to imprecise
probabilities. After stating the above techniques, Duncan et
al., discuss the Information-Gap Decision Theory (IGDT)
approach regarding the nominal and true value of a
decision. “IGDT is used to evaluate the robustness of the
decision-making process applied by the decision maker”
(pp. 1-5).
Also, Zhao and Zhang (2014) contend that IGDT is
“a method to describe the uncertainties which cannot be
described using PDF (Probability Distribution Function) or
MF (Membership Function) due to the lack of sufficient
information. IGDT models the errors between the actual
and forecasted parameters. It is based on quantitative
models and provides numerical decision-support
assessments. Using this method, the decision maker can
recognize priorities, evaluate risks and opportunities, and
make more informed decisions ultimately” (p. 399).
As a summary of the above, multiple types of
research have been conducted on the impact of stress on
decision making. Stress has an impact not only on the
quality of decisions made but also on the decision-making

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
5
process as a whole. This impact differs as a result of the
skills of the decision maker and the techniques and
approach adopted by him/her while evaluating alternatives
under stressful or uncertain conditions, which may vary
from short time period to a catastrophe. To leaders and
executives of organizations, decision making is a critical
part of their job’s demands; hence, they are the most
individuals who should be well-trained in and
knowledgeable about how to deal with decision making
under stress. Leadership decisions are those decisions upon
which the survival and sustainability of an organization
depend on. Stress impact on these decisions varies based
on the type of stress, the type of approach of the leader to
stress, and the techniques applied by the leader during the
decision making process under stress.
8. Group Decision Making Under Stress:
Group decision making under stress was discussed
by Driskell and Salas (1991) who stipulated that group
interaction is a trend in decision making. They point out the
fact that “multiple decisions require the collaborative effort
of groups where decisions are largely affected by
environmental factors including stress” (p. 473). They
conclude that stress strengthens the hierarchical structure
of a group, such that group members defer more to the
leader, and the leader becomes less responsive to
subordinates' task inputs (pp. 474-477). Furthermore, the
authors discuss the numerous effects of stress on decision-
making group members. They state that some members
when under stress, are hesitant to adhere to authority. They
explain this hesitancy by the fact that organizations usually
respond to stress by centralizing control and authority to
make decisions to high-level managers as these decisions
are viewed as a response to threats from competitors:
Organizational control is usually increased and the
decisions of authority personnel prevail in stressful
conditions. As for small-groups, it is more likely that group
members will rely on the opinions and actions of the group
leader while the group leader will likely reject input from
group members (pp. 473-474).
Marshall (2014) contends that “for team tasks, the
social behavior may be very important to overall
performance. To build a shared knowledge and
understanding within the team, members need to be able to
communicate with one another. However, Driskell, Salas,
and Johnston (1999) proposed that attentional narrowing
caused by stress may extend to the social interactions
between team members. They hypothesized that under
stress team members may shift from a focus on teamwork
to a focus on their individual subtasks” (pp. 36-37). In
addition to a more individualist focus, research has found
that stress has negative effects on team communication” (p.
37). Finally, Marshall (2014) asserts that “among the
contributing factors in lowering performance due to social
effects of stress may be increased attention focused on
oneself, rather than on teammates, and a decline in team
communication. It is likely that these effects stem from the
cognitive decrements associated with stress. Whatever
their origins, impaired communication, and coordination of
operations will inevitably result in diminished performance
outcomes” (p. 38).
9. Stress effects:
Harter, Schmidt and Hayes, (2002) assert that stress
at work is associated with substantial economic
consequences, including increased absenteeism, increased
worker turnover, decreased worker job satisfaction and
associated decreases in worker productivity. On the other
hand, Chandola et al. (2008) contend that stress at work is
a major public health risk associated with cardiovascular
morbidity. Also, Thayer et al. (2011) measured two
aspects of the physiological stress response: “vagally
mediated heart rate variability (HRV) and salivary cortisol,
measures of the autonomic nervous system and the
hormonal stress response, respectively. These measures
were applied to workers in two different office settings
namely, old office space, characterized by poorer lighting
and air quality compared to the new office space with
opposite better conditions” (p. 432).
The aforementioned study for the first time links the
physical work environment to altered physiological aspects
of the stress response. For example, Thayer et al.’s findings
indicate “greater activation of both the autonomic and
hormonal stress response in subjects in old office space,
and a shift towards a more vagally mediated, a lower stress
hormone responsive state in subjects in the new office
space” (p. 437). In addition, numerous studies have now
reported that work stress is associated with increased risk
of coronary heart disease (CHD) (Belkic et al., 2004;
Aboa-Éboulé et al., 2007).
According to the American Institute of Stress
(2017), “there are numerous emotional and physical
disorders that have been linked to stress including
depression, anxiety, heart attacks, stroke, hypertension,
immune system disturbances that increase susceptibility to
infections, a host of viral linked disorders, as well as
autoimmune diseases. In addition, stress can have direct
effects on the skin (rashes, hives, atopic dermatitis, the
gastrointestinal system and can contribute to insomnia and
degenerative neurological disorders like Parkinson’s
disease” (Para 1).
10. The Trier Social Stress Test (TSST):
The Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) is the most
common psychological test used in stress studies and
research. It is an effective laboratory protocol for
stimulating stress in humans and measuring their
responses. The TSST induces two types of responses to
stress: physiological such as the response of the
hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPAA) and the
autonomous nervous system (ANS) and psychological

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
6
such as an increase in anxiety and emotional insecurity
(Hellhammer & Schubert, 2011, p. 119). The TSST follows
a systematic procedure and design. It consists of an
interview and an arithmetic task (ibid, p. 120). TSST for
groups follows a protocol called TSST-G protocol. It is a
standardized motivated performance task protocol of
socio-evaluative threat and uncontrollability in a group
format (Von Dawans, Kirschbaum, & Heinrichs, 2010, p.
515). The subjects of TSST are usually required to follow
a certain diet before sitting for the test. This diet is usually
caffeine free in order to minimize the external stress effects
(Hellhammer & Schubert, 2011, p. 120). The location and
premises design are essential in ensuring the validity of the
analysis of the data gathered through the test. Exhibit 1
shows a brief description of the process.
Exhibit 1. The Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) process
The TSST procedure includes a preparation period
(50 min), the task (TSST-G or control condition (30
min), and a resting and debriefing period (60 min).
The task phases depend on what the TSST is done for.
The participants are usually subjected to different
experiments that induce stress in specific situations
related to the desired outcome and purpose of the test.
For example, the task phase may include hypothetical
job interviews, subject-area matter speeches, and
some arithmetic tasks where participants may be
asked to choose a number from 1 to 6 and perform
certain arithmetic operations to reach a result under
specific conditions.
Source: Von Dawans et al., 2010, pp. 516-518.
As a wrap-up, the TSST is a stress test that induces
a physiological response, which becomes apparent by
profound changes in heart rate and cortisol levels and a
psychological response, which becomes apparent by
subjective measures of stress, emotional insecurity and
anxiety in subjects.
11. Summary of Literature Findings:
Cleary, the impact of the effect of stress on
professional judgment is significant. During an emergency
situation, critical judgments are frequently made under
conditions of temporary or prolonged stress. Emergency
decision-makers are required to process massive amounts
of information, which is sometimes incomplete or faulty,
under severe time constraints. The need to better
understand judgment and decision-making under stress
stems from high-risk occasions and emergency situations.
Decision making is certainly the most important task of a
manager and it is often a very difficult one.
The domain of decision analysis models falls
between different cases that depend on the degree of
knowledge about the outcome of the decisions. With all the
advances in big data and in-memory computing,
particularly the availability of big data in working memory,
it’s no surprise that business leaders are relying more and
more on analytics, or explicit memory to help them make
the right decisions. However, this approach is only
effective in routine decision making. When faced with
decisions that are non-routine, and specifically those in
mission-critical, time-sensitive scenarios, too much data
can overwhelm executives causing them to delay key
decisions, often indefinitely. In decision making under
stress, or non-routine decisions, executives are better
served by using their explicit memory to quickly narrow
down choices, but trusting their implicit memory, and
letting it override explicit memory to make the actual
decision. The key is to use data to show the way, but the
instinct to choose the path. Multiple tests and experiments
are present to evaluate and measure the performance of
individuals and groups under stress. Of those tests, the
Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) has become a standard
protocol for the experimental induction of moderate
psychological stress in psychobiological research.
11.1. Problem definition:
In business, stress can be a determinant of the
success or failure of managers in making key decisions.
Stress is one of the factors that decision-makers must
contend with. Managers usually don’t feel the materialized
impacts of stress on their performance and hence, they
disregard the consequences of taking important business
decisions while feeling stressed whether from personal or
work-related issues. As such, managers and decision
makers are furnished with an opportunity to improve their
performance and decision making skills, at the same time,
mitigate the impacts of stress not only on their performance
but also on their daily life. This can only be done through
a study that assesses and analyzes the different aspects of
decision making under stress. In addition, this paper should
result in the formulation of a preliminary mitigation
strategy that may act as a basis for future studies and
development of a complete and comprehensive business
stress mitigation strategy.
11.2. Research Questions:
This research intends to answer the following
questions:
1) What are the aspects of decision making that are affected
by stress?
2) What is the response of managers when faced with
stressful decisions?
3) What behavioral and physical stress impacts affect
decision makers?
4) What is the perception of employees of their managers’
performance when under stress?
12. Methodology:
12.1. Research Strategy:
“Strategy is the overall approach adopted in the
research” (Hejase & Hejase, 2013, p. 78). The strategy

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
7
(design) chosen for this research project is Exploratory
Research Design. Therefore, this research paper is
exploratory and explanatory in nature; it uses a quantitative
research method. According to Hejase et al. (2012), “using
quantitative methods oblige the individual using them to
collect necessary information while taking into account the
information’s value, reliability, appropriateness,
ambiguity, fitness, timeliness, risks, and cost” (p. 17).
Furthermore, “Quantitative research involves studies that
make use of statistical analyses to obtain their findings.
Key features include formal and systematic measurement
and the use of statistics” (Marczyk et. al, 2005, p. 17).
Moreover, quantitative research methods use surveys and
experiments where the research is independent of the
researcher. That is why quantitative research is objective
(Williams, 2007, p. 66).
12.2. Research Philosophy:
According to Hejase and Hejase (2013), research
philosophy is the first issue to be taken into consideration
by the researcher. “It is the way to go about doing the
research” (p. 77). This research uses positivism
philosophy. “Positivism is when the researcher assumes the
role of an objective analyst, is independent, and neither
affects nor is affected by the subject of the research” (ibid).
Quantitative research is applicable to phenomena that can
be expressed by quantity (Kothari, 2004, p. 3). Therefore,
a quantitative approach was chosen.
12.3. Research Approach:
Elo and Helvi (2008) contend that “a deductive
approach is useful if the general aim was to test a previous
theory in a different situation or to compare categories at
different time periods” (p. 107). This research uses a
deductive approach, where the basic premise behind
adopting a deductive approach provides a better
understanding of the research problem using statistical
analysis. The outcome of this research depends on the data
gathered during the research process whether from primary
or secondary sources of data. This research will reach
general propositions that will answer the questions set at
the beginning of the research process based on the data and
information collected. The propositions may as well serve
as general conclusions useful for further research.
12.4. Time Horizon:
The researchers performed a Cross-Sectional study
during this research. All survey questionnaires were
conducted at a particular and specific time, that is, during
the period extending from April 15, 2015, to September 20,
2015. The research covers employees’ reactions and views
on the impact of stress on decision making during a specific
period of time.
12.5. Data Collection Techniques
This research collected primary data from a survey
distributed to employees of a selected number of Lebanese
organizations.
12.6. Survey Questionnaire Design:
The questionnaire is targeted at employees to
analyze their knowledge, attitude, and evaluation of their
managers’ performance while taking decisions under
stress. The questionnaire is divided into four sections. The
first section is designed to assess the decision making
knowledge of employees. The second is designed to
evaluate the attitude of employees towards managers’
behavior under stress. The third is designed to capture the
employees’ evaluation of their managers’ performance
while taking decisions under stress. The fourth is targeted
at demographic information of the respondents.
12.7. Data Analysis:
All responses were entered into the SPSS program
“Statistical Product and Service Solutions, an IBM product
acquired by IBM in 2009 (Hejase & Hejase, 2013, p. 58).
The study was performed using descriptive statistics; data
tables including frequency and percentage distributions
were used. Moreover, crosstabs and regression analysis
were performed to study relationships between variables
that may add value to the findings of the research.
12.8 Sampling and Sample Size:
This research used convenience non-probabilistic
sampling based on the respondents’ willingness to
participate and their agreement to speak freely. The
targeted number of employees was 120; however, 100
employees responded (response rate 83.33%). Twenty
questionnaires were discarded based on the fact that 12
were half-incomplete, 5 were never returned and 3 were
wrongly filled.
12.9. Research Ethics:
Ghauri and Gronhaug (2005) contend that “ethics is
the moral principles and values that influence the way
through which researchers conduct their research
activities” (cited in Hejase & Hejase, 2013, p. 55). In
undertaking this research various sources have been
researched in order to ensure that this study meets
acceptable ethical guidelines. The researchers took the
responsibility to apply and abide by all the principles of
research ethics mentioned by Churchill (1999; cited in
Hejase & Hejase, 2013, p. 55-56) and Bryman and Bell
(2011), including (pp. 128-142): Harm to Participants;
Lack of Informed Consent; Invasion of Privacy;
Deception; Data Management; Copyright; Reciprocity and
Trust; and Affiliation and Conflict of Interest.

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
8
13. Findings:
13.1. Demographic Statistics:
Results show that 52% of the respondents are males
and 48% are females. Also, 69% of the respondents are
single, 26% are married and only 5% are divorced.
Moreover, data show that the 25-31 years old is the age
group with the most percentage (58%); the second being
18-24 years old (23%), and the third 32-38 years old (10%).
The other two age groups have a total percentage of 9%.
This shows that the sample chosen is of a young age.
Further, 29% of the respondents have 4-6 years of
experience, 26% have 1-3 years, and 18% have 7-9 years,
while 14% have more than 10-12 years of experience. The
remaining 10% have more than 13 years of experience and
only 4% have less than 1 year of experience.
As for respondents’ salary ranges, results show that
57% of the respondents have a salary range between $1001
and $2000, 23% between $2001 and $3000, and 11% less
than $1001. The remaining 9% of the respondents have a
salary range above $3000. Furthermore, results show that
10% of the respondents’ primary industry consists of
consumer goods, 7-8% engage in industries related to
transportation, logistics, financial services, professional
services, IT, healthcare, education, entertainment, and
manufacturing, while 4-6% of the respondents deal with
telecommunications, government, construction, and
retailing. Only 2% of the respondents work in the
chemicals industry. Table 1 depicts the aforementioned
results.
Table 1: Respondents’ Company Primary Industry
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Financial services
7
7.0
Professional services
7
7.0
IT and technology
7
7.0
Healthcare,
pharmaceuticals, and
biotechnology
8
8.0
Telecommunications
6
6.0
Manufacturing
8
8.0
Government/Public
sector
4
4.0
Education
7
7.0
Entertainment, media,
and publishing
8
8.0
Chemicals
2
2.0
Consumer goods
10
10.0
Construction and real
estate
5
5.0
Transportation, travel
and tourism
7
7.0
Retailing
6
6.0
Logistics and
distribution
8
8.0
Total
100
100.0
13.2. Statistics of Decision making knowledge:
This section studies respondents’ knowledge of
decision making under stress. The variables examined are
stress indicators, causes of stress, awareness of physical
and behavioral stress impacts. Results show that 61% of
the respondents believe that work performance alteration is
the most visible stress indicator at work. 49% believe that
change in attitude and behavior at work is one of the stress
indicators, while only 43% of the respondents chose
alteration in relationships at work as a stress indicator. As
for the causes of stress, 81% of the respondents agree that
both environments inside and outside work, in general, are
the major cause of stress; 11% related it to domestic
problems; and, 8% to the physical environment. Moreover,
the majority (97%) of the respondents are aware of the
impacts of stress. Tables 2 shows the results of the impacts
of physical and behavioral stress. This Table also shows
that responses are classified into six scales as follows: LI:
Least Important (code: 1); NI: Not Important (code: 2);
SNI: Slightly Not Important (code: 3); SI: Slightly
Important (code: 4); I: Important (code: 5); and MI: Most
Important (code: 6).
Table 2: Physical Stress Impacts
Causes
LI
NI
SNI
SI
I
MI
Mean
Std. Dev.
Valid Percentage
Raised heart rate
9
12
24
17
26
12
3.81
1.450
Gastrointestinal
problems
5
5
31
33
10
16
3.95
1.393
Skin conditions
43
19
12
4
11
11
2.54
1.804
Headaches
9
5
8
29
31
18
4.03
1.500
Nausea, aches
and pains
9
18
18
9
17
29
3.89
1.712
Lowering of
resistance to
infection
23
41
8
7
7
14
2.86
1.813
Results show that the respondents rated headaches,
gastrointestinal problems, and nausea as the most
important, on the average, physical impact of stress. The
respondents nominated skin conditions and low resistance
to infection as the least and not important physical impact
of stress. As for Table 3, it shows that the respondent's rate
(based on 4-level scale) tiredness (mean = 3.05) and
reduced quality of work (mean = 2.65) as the most
important, on the average, behavioral impact of stress.
While reduced attention span (mean = 2.24) and loss of
sense of humor (mean = 2.19) are classified as the least
important behavioral impact of stress.
Table 4 shows additional behavioral impacts of
stress: the respondents nominated poor sleep pattern (mean
= 2.57) as well as verbal or physical aggression (mean =
2.65) as the most important behavioral impact of stress (on
the average). Poor timekeeping and increased sick leave

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
9
are rated as the least important behavioral impact of stress
by the respondents.
Table 3: Behavioral Stress Impacts
Causes
LI
Not So
Important
I
MI
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Valid Percentage
Tiredness and
irritability
17
14
32
37
3.05
1.129
Reduced
quality of
work,
indecisiveness
and poor
judgment
7
30
33
30
2.65
1.033
Reduced
attention span
and impaired
memory
27
38
17
18
2.24
1.038
Loss of sense
of humor
48
18
16
18
2.19
1.175
Table 4: Behavioral Stress Impacts
Causes
LI
Not So
Important
I
MI
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Valid Percentage
Poor sleep
pattern, impaired
concentration or
excessively
‘jumpy’
21
20
29
30
2.57
1.168
Increased sick
leave
23
18
29
30
2.46
1.120
Poor time
keeping
36
37
22
5
2.43
1.068
Verbal or
physical
aggression
26
18
20
36
2.65
1.207
13.3. Decision making under stress: implementation
issues:
Results show that 79% of the respondents’ managers
have plan in place for situations that call for reactive
decision-making, 68% answered that their managers
follow the normal decision-making process in stressful
situations, 65% answered that their managers implement a
risk assessment matrix to analyze the risks of unexpected
decisions, and 62% replied that their managers evaluate the
consequences of decisions made under pressure. Moreover,
when respondents are asked about the applied technical
tools to support decision making in stressful situations,
their responses are as follows: 50% use brainstorming, 8%
use weighted average approach, 8% use Net Present Value
(NPV) analysis, and 34% use scenario analysis.
Furthermore, respondents assert that their managers use
Balanced Score Card approach for comprehensive analysis
(22%), Decision Checklists (73%), as well as Pareto Charts
(5%).
13.4. Inferential Statistics – Regression Analysis:
According to Hejase & Hejase (2013) a multiple
regression model is needed when the researcher faces the
scenario where more than one independent variable is
causing variations in the dependent variable under study (p.
478). Therefore, the next step is to construct possible
relationship which may help in stating the relationship and
the potential effects of stress on decision making.
For this regression analysis:
Dependent variable: the manager's reactive decision-
making planning since it reflects how managers make
decisions under stress.
Table 5: Pearson Correlation
Manager's reactive decision-making plans
R
P. Sig.
r
Manager's reactive decision-making plans
1.000
-
Manager is a good role model
-.549
.000
Manager treats the team members with respect
-.119
.119
Manager does what he/she says
-.342
.000
Manager acts calmly in pressured situations
-.328
.000
Manager takes a consistent approach to managing
-.549
.000
Manager moods are predictable
-.081
.211
Manager does not transmit his/her stress to the team
-.118
.120
Manager approaches deadlines calmly
-.293
.002
Manager welcomes suggestions for improvements from the team
-.447
.000
Manager allows the team to plan their workloads
-.271
.003
Manager creates realistic deadlines
-.300
.001
Manager deals with problems by himself rather than relying on others
-.533
.000
Manager allows his/her team to approach their work in their own way
-.443
.000
Manager shows a consideration for the team’s work-life balance
-.230
.011
Manager's adherence to normal decision-making process
.541
.000
Manager's implementation of Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) to analyze the risks of unexpected decisions
.378
.000
Manager's evaluation of the consequences of decisions made under pressure
.254
.005
Manager's applied technique under stressful situations
-.170
.046
Manager's applied tool under stressful situations
.229
.011
Note: Correlation Count is based on 100 respondents.

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
10
Independent variables: Manager is a good role
model, Manager treats the team members with respect,
Manager does what he/she says, Manager acts calmly in
pressured situations, Manager takes a consistent approach
to managing, Manager moods are predictable, Manager
does not transmit his/her stress to the team, Manager
approaches deadlines calmly, Manager welcomes
suggestions for improvements from the team, Manager
allows the team to plan their workloads, Manager creates
realistic deadlines, Manager deals with problems by
himself rather than relying on others, Manager allows
his/her team to approach their work in their own way,
Manager shows consideration for the team’s work-life
balance, Manager's adherence to normal decision-making
process, Manager's implementation of Risk Assessment
Matrix (RAM) to analyze the risks of unexpected
decisions, Manager's evaluation of the consequences of
decisions made under pressure, Manager's applied
technique under stressful situations, and Manager's applied
tool under stressful situations. Table 5 depicts the values of
Pearson Correlation R and P-sig between all the different
variables. All p-Sig above 5% are excluded.
Next, regression analysis using Step-wise
Regression method is performed and the resultant model,
after eight cycles of computations, has led to the final
model depicted in Table 6 with 8 independent variables
only (out of 19 variables).
Dependent variable: Manager's reactive decision-making
plans Eight independent variables: Manager takes a
consistent approach to managing, Manager's adherence to
normal decision-making process, Manager's
implementation of Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) to
analyze the risks of unexpected decisions, Manager allows
his/her team to approach their work in their own way,
Manager does not transmit his/her stress to the team,
Manager is a good role model, Manager treats the team
members with respect, Manager deals with problems by
himself rather than relying on others.
Table 6: Model 8 Summary
Results from Table 6 show that the resultant model
8 (after 8 cycles of regression analysis) is quantitatively
suitable due to the values of the coefficient of correlation
(R = 0.847, where index ‘h’ represents the resultant
regression predictors) and the coefficient of determination
(R2 = 0.718); moreover, the model is qualitatively
acceptable and statistically significant with F-value = 4.235
with an associated probability of 0.042 which is less than α
= 0.05. Durbin Watson statistic gives information about
whether the assumption of independent errors is tenable.
The result indicates 1.619, which is relatively close to 2
indicating that assumption is almost met.
Moreover, results of ANOVA testing indicate that
the regression equation predicts better than would be
expected by chance. The F-value = 28.913 with an
associated probability of 0.000 which is less than α = 0.01.
From the above results and interpretation, it can be
concluded that the model is the best fit model for this
regression analysis. In addition, Table 7 shows the
standardized coefficients with their corresponding P. Sig.
characterizing the independent variables.
Table 7 gives the values of the unstandardized as
well as the standardized coefficients with the p-sig value
for each variable. Herein is the analysis of the results of the
model.
The resultant standardized regression equation is
Reactive Plans =
- 0.367 Con. App. + 0.237 Dec. Proc. + 0.248 RAM
(0.000) (0.001) (0.000)
- 0.218 Team App. + 0.286 Trans. Stress - 0.343 Role
Model
(0.004) (0.000) (0.000)
+ 0.269 Respect - 0.142 Problems
(0.000) (0.042)
The analysis of the coefficient values is based on the
fact that for every one standard deviation change in the
independent variable, the dependent variable will either
increase (Beta has a positive value) or decrease (Beta has a
negative value.
Model
R
R2
Adjusted
R2
Std. Error
of Estimate
Change Statistics
Durbin-
Watson
R2 Change
F Change
df1
df2
Sig. F Change
8
.847h
.718
.693
.227
.013
4.235
1
91
.042
1.619
h. Predictors: (Constant): Manager takes a consistent approach to managing; Manager's adherence to normal decision-
making process; Manager's implementation of Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) to analyze the risks of unexpected
decisions; Manager allows his/her team to approach their work in their own way; Manager does not transmit his/her
stress to the team; Manager is a good role model; Manager treats the team members with respect; Manager deals with
problems by himself rather than relying on others
i. Dependent Variable: Manager's reactive decision-making plans

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
11
This reverse relation is due to the reverse coding of
original 5-level Likert scale variable where the scale is in a
decreasing order). Finally, the following interpretation is
presented:
Respondents have characterized their managers’
decision making under stress, which is measured as having
plans in place for reactive decisions as consistent,
systematic (normal decision making or step by step
approach), readiness by applying RAM analysis,
considerate to their employees’ responses, respectful to
employees, and cautious not to transfer his/her own stress
to subordinates, and deal with problems on their own.
By analyzing the p-sig values for all the independent
variables, all the variables have a p-sig value less than 5%
(.000). This indicates that the standardized regression
equation is suitable and statistically significant.
Furthermore, Figures 1 and 2 show the regression.
Standardized residual histogram and the Normal P-Plot of
regression standardized residual.
Figure 1. Regression Standardized Residual Histogram
Figure 2. Normal P-Plot of Regression Standardized
Residual.
13.5. Reliability analysis:
In regards to reliability, an assessment of the internal
consistency of each survey set of items is performed,
essentially assessing whether all the items belonging to one
set measure the same thing by using Cronbach’s alpha
technique, where the reliability increases when the alpha
value approaches 1. An alpha value of 0.8 or above is
regarded as highly acceptable for assuming homogeneity
of items (Burns & Burns, 2008), while an alpha value that
is greater than 0.7 is considered appropriate even though
this value could be as low as 0.6 for exploratory research
(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998; Nunally, 1978).
Table 7: shows the standardized coefficients with their corresponding P. Sig. characterizing the independent
variables.
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
8
(Constant)
1.354
.199
6.803
.000
Manager takes a consistent approach to
managing
-.147
.033
-.367
-4.410
.000
Manager's adherence to normal decision-
making process
.207
.058
.237
3.552
.001
Manager's implementation of Risk Assessment
Matrix (RAM) to analyze the risks of
unexpected decisions
.212
.051
.248
4.184
.000
Manager allows his/her team to approach their
work in their own way
-.075
.026
-.218
-2.918
.004
Manager does not transmit his/her stress to the
team
.086
.022
.286
3.856
.000
Manager is a good role model
-.126
.032
-.343
-3.987
.000
Manager treats the team members with respect
.114
.031
.269
3.636
.000
Manager deals with problems by himself rather
than relying on others
-.047
.023
-.142
-2.058
.042
Dependent Variable: Manager's reactive decision-making plans

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
12
Thus, the resulting Cronbach’s alphas, after the suggested
eliminations is 0.908, which is excellent as measures of
internal reliability for the attitude scale in the Likert
section.
13.6. Quantitative Data Analysis Summary:
Based on the above analysis, the following
conclusions can be drawn: Employees in their evaluation
of their managers’ decision-making skills and performance
under stress don’t rely on the managers’ attitudes and
behaviors as the results show that most of the variables
related to the managers’ attitudes are eliminated
automatically when creating the regression model.
Moreover, the analysis shows that even though
managers can be regarded as role models by their
employees; however the managers’ performance under
stress is evaluated negatively by said employees, though
employees relate managers’ allowing them to participate in
problem-solving and adopting a team approach to their
performance under stress. In addition, the regression model
adopted shows that the employees rely mostly on the
managers’ adherence to the normal decision-making
process and the tools and techniques they apply in their
assessment of their managers’ reactive decision plans
under stress. From the above, it can be concluded that
employees rely on objective criteria when evaluating their
managers’ performance without consideration to their
managers’ attitudes or behaviors.
14. Discussion:
The purpose of this paper is to assess the impact of
stress throughout the decision-making process and not only
at the time of taking a decision. The paper also highlights
the importance of mitigating such stress in order to reach
an effective decision. The impact of stress is studied from
two perspectives, decision-makers themselves and their
subordinates.
As mentioned earlier, this research addresses several
questions:
(1) What are the aspects of decision making that are
affected by stress?
Table 5 shows that respondents believe that their
managers’ decision making under stress shows positive
signs as to the following aspects: Consistency, dealing with
deadlines, attitude toward welcoming suggestions for
improvement and involving teams to plan their workload.
It is worth mentioning that the above aspects, if not
managed well, lead to depression as asserted by Murali
(2009; cited in Sushmitha, 2011), “depression is usually
related to work and stress people undergo because of the
pressure to perform better, compete with other colleagues
and meet tight deadlines. Most of their work is target-
oriented and if targets are not met, it can lead to anxiety.
Peers are not very supportive as they also competing in the
same field” (p. 35).
(2) What is the response of managers when faced with
stressful decisions?
The regression model shows that respondents have
characterized their managers’ response to stress as positive
when: Having consistent plans in place, practicing
systematic (normal decision making or step by step
approach), showing readiness by applying RAM analysis,
being considerate to their employees’ responses, being
respectful to employees, being cautious not to transfer own
stress to subordinates, and dealing personally with
problems rather than relying on others.
The aforementioned dimensions reflect a mature
attitude of the respondents’ managers who work under
stress; a fact that mitigates work burnout for employees.
According to Leger-Hornby and Bleed (2006), “a person
who is overwhelmed, overworked, or burned out can not
only be ineffective in his or her job and have a very
negative effect on colleagues but also is at risk of serious
depression that can threaten employment, relationships,
and health” (Para 35, section 7.8).
(3) What are behavioral and physical stress impacts to
affect decision makers?
Results show that the respondents rated headaches,
gastrointestinal problems, and nausea as the most
important, on the average, physical impacts of stress. On
the other hand, respondents rated tiredness and reduced
quality of work as the most important, on the average,
behavioral impacts of stress. Coetzee and Rothmann
(2005, p.48) raised a concern that “stress is the second most
frequently reported condition of individuals who disclosed
a work-related illness”. Therefore, organizations whose
employees suffer from frequent cases of illness due to
stress have to train the management on stress management
actions and occupational health and well-being
improvement (Gatchel & Schultz, 2012).
(4) What is the perception of employees towards their
managers’ performance under stress?
Respondents perceive their managers positively
along the following dimensions: Allowing their teams to
approach their work in their own way, Showing a
consideration for the team’s work-life balance, Adhering to
normal decision-making process (step-by-step),
Implementing Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) to analyze
the risks of unexpected decisions, Evaluating the
consequences of decisions made under pressure, Applying
decision making technique under stressful situations
(brainstorming, scenario analysis, etc…), and Applying of
decision tools under stressful situations (Balanced Score
Cards, Check Lists, Pareto Analysis, etc…).
The aforementioned behavioral perspectives of
respondents’ managers under stress relieve employees
from being under stressful conditions while managers
themselves are managing organizational stressful condition
necessitating adequate attitude towards decision making.

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
13
Such an outcome leads to the inference that employees will
not be obliged to think about alternative jobs with less
stressful conditions. Mxenge, Dywili and Bazana (2014),
contend that “there is a significant positive relationship
between organizational stress and intention to quit. It
shows that employees experiencing organizational stress
have high turnover intentions” (p. 26). Furthermore, this
research shows that 61% of the respondents believe that
work performance alteration is the most visible stress
indicator at work; 49% believe that change in attitude and
behavior at work is noticed as one of the stress indicators,
while only 43% of the respondents choose alteration in
relationships at work as stress indicator.
These results fit what is reported by El Shikieri and
Musa (2012) in their research, “lack of participation by
workers in decision making, poor communication in the
organization, lack of family-friendly policies, poor social
environment and lack of support or help from co-workers
and supervisors are considered job stressors” (p. 137). As
for the causes of stress, 81% of the respondents agree that
both environments inside and outside work, in general, are
the major cause of stress. Such results shed light on the
recurrent issue at work, namely, work-life conflict. Though
this research did not investigate the impact of work-life
conflict as a stressor, it is worth mentioning that reported
research findings provide evidence of negative
consequences. A study conducted by Noor and Maad
(2008) tested the relationship between work-life conflict,
stress and turnover intention. “The study yielded results
showing that turnover intention is positively correlated
with stress. In their study, Noor and Maad (2008)
confirmed that as an individual’s stress level increases,
they are more likely to leave their stressful position and
seek alternative positions either within the field or in
another industry” (Mxenge, Dywili and Bazana, 2014, p.
26). Stress is one of the factors that decision-makers
must contend with in most life-or-death situations.
Understanding how stress affects decision- making is
complicated by the fact that not all stress responses are
created equal. The authors of this paper recommend the
following insights:
Decision-making is certainly the most important
task of a manager that is based on decision analysis models,
depending on the degree of knowledge of the outcome of
the decisions. According to Bapat (2014), “it’s no surprise
that business leaders are relying more and more
on analytics, or explicit memory (involving the conscious
recollection of information, experiences, and events) to
help them make the right decisions. This is fine for routine
decisions – though even here, I would argue, insights from
big data should still be combined with instincts honed over
years of experience” (Para 5). However, and again
according to Bapat, “when faced with decisions that are
non-routine, and specifically those in mission-critical,
time-sensitive scenarios, too much data can overwhelm
executives causing them to delay key decisions, often
indefinitely (i.e., suffering analysis paralysis). In these
scenarios, executives are better served by using explicit
memory to quickly narrow down choices, but a trusting
implicit memory (involves anything one learns to go
through repetitive practice), and letting it override explicit
memory to make the actual decision. The key is to use data
to show the way, but the instinct to choose the path” (Para
6). Employees rely on objective criteria when
evaluating their managers’ performance without
consideration for their managers’ attitudes or behaviors.
14.1. Research Contribution:
The work of the researchers throughout and after the
completion of this paper slightly contributes to the existing
body of knowledge regarding the impact of stress on
decision-making. The contributions are limited by the fact
that the research was done within the context of few
Lebanese organizations and sectors. Nevertheless, this
research is new in the Lebanese market and helps in
minimizing the gap of knowledge and the lack of research
and case studies on the subject of the impact of stress on
decision-making in the Lebanese market.
The findings of this research are also new and
contribute to prior research findings on the subject of the
research. Moreover, these findings can serve as the basis
for future more comprehensive research in the larger
context of Lebanese market and in the region. The
researchers are also able to formulate an adjusted model for
the impact of stress on decision-making that is used as a
benchmark in this research. This adjusted model is the
basis for the development of the organizational specific
model. Finally, the findings of the research can be useful
in the future preparations and training in promotions of
managers in organizations.
15. Recommendations:
Based on the conclusions mentioned above, and in
order to ensure the smooth success of future decisions
taken under stress, multiple measures can be recommended
to organizations. First, organizations should run a yearly
employee engagement survey across each department,
giving the employees the opportunity to express their point
of view. As Macey and Schneider (2008) suggest, “a
commonality exists amongst all definitions of engagement,
regardless of the source, which in essence depicts
employee engagement as a ‘desirable condition’ that has an
organizational purpose and ‘connotes involvement,
commitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused effort and
energy, so it has both attitudinal and behavioral
components” (p. 4). The employee engagement survey is
designed to assess areas such as leadership, agency culture,
motivation, collaboration, empowerment, trust, training,
and work-life balance. However, speaking at the Employee
Engagement Summit in 2009, John Purcell, Strategic

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
14
Academic Advisor at Acas National, suggested six key
factors that limit or damage employee’s engagement; these
are depicted in Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 2. Key factors that damage employee’s
engagement
Source: Purcell, 2009; cited in Robertson-Smith and
Markwick, 2009.
Moreover, organizations should rely on
professionals that work in the sector of business stress
training in order to promote stress management and
introduce for both management and employees’ ways of
actively managing wellness and well-being that will help
them evaluate any decision taken under stress
15.1. Decision Making Under Stress:
In order to reduce the failure rate of decisions made
by managers under stress and the consequences of such
failure, it is useful to establish a guideline that governs the
procedures that should be followed by managers as well as
employees. The development of a comprehensive strategic
policy that covers the whole reactive decision-making
process can help in reducing the likelihood and impacts of
the negative consequences of such decisions.
In the case of Lebanon, organizations and their
managers should review prior decision making processes
and studies before embarking on uncertain decisions taken
under stress. Multiple case studies with various industries
and various organizational sizes can be conducted to
identify the reasons for decision’s success or failure.
Specific industries or organizational sizes and even
managers from different levels might have different
decision-making skills and reactions to stress; this may
have an influence upon decision’s success. All of the above
factors could drive Lebanese organizations to create a
research framework and model which may be useful for
understanding critical success factors for reactive decisions
within the context of the Lebanese market or simply create
a set of best practices that may be used as a reference.
This research proposes a solution that would meet
the needs of all parties related to the subject matter. For
decision makers, the implications represent a means of
highlighting stress impacts and ways to control and
minimize those impacts. For subordinates of decision
makers, the research addresses the need of adapting to
stressful decision makers and assisting them to reach the
best decisions. As for the research itself, the project
addresses the need of help in reducing an existing gap and
highlights new gaps in the analysis of the effects of stress
throughout the decision making the process at selected
Lebanese organizations.
16. Limitations:
Sample size and the convenience sampling is one of
the limitations. Consequently, findings of this research
must not be generalized, although these findings are
eminent from primary data which provides originality to
the exploratory research presented herein. Furthermore, the
limited number of variables investigated would not label
this study as comprehensive.
Regardless of the aforementioned limitations, this
research offers an important insight into how Lebanese
companies deal with decision making under stress and
contributes to further understanding of the Lebanese
employees’ views of their managers.
17. Future research:
Based upon the work done during the course of this
research, the researchers have identified the following
benefits that can serve as lessons learned for future
research:
Defining a new gap
The researchers were able to define a new gap in the
context of the Lebanese market regarding decision making
under stress. The gap defined can serve as the basis for
future studies.
Creating a need for qualitative research
Developing and conducting focus group sessions
with managers may enrich the outcomes. Conducting these
sessions with managers from different levels adds a direct
insight into the subject, and results would serve to validate
the quantitative results.
Future research should further broaden the investigation
There is an opportunity to study and analyze the
impacts and implications of stress in all its types and
resources, on the decisions taken by managers. These
impacts can be analyzed from the gender perspective,
where gender-specific strategies can be developed based
on this analysis.
Acknowledgements:
The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable
constructive criticism and editing performed by Mrs.
Henriette Skaff, senior editor at American University of
Science and Technology‘s Publications Department.
Corresponding Author:
Hussin J. Hejase, Ph.D.
Faculty of Business Administration, Al Maaref
University, Beirut, Lebanon.
E-mail: hhejase@mu.edu.lb
• Job insecurity: fear of job loss is particularly likely
during a recession.
• Unfairness, particularly in reward and pay systems.
• Jobs with no space, i.e. repetitive work with short
cycle times such as call center work with very short
call times.
• Highly stressful jobs with very little flexibility or
autonomy.
• Poor line management behavior and bullying.
• Working for long periods of time without a break.

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
15
References:
1. Aboa-Éboulé, C., Brisson, C., Maunsell, E., Mâsse, B.,
Bourbonnais, R., Vézina, M., ... & Dagenais, G. R.
(2007). Job strain and risk of acute recurrent coronary
heart disease events. Jama, 298(14), 1652-1660.
2. American Psychological Association (APA). (2010).
Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of
Conduct. Retrieved April 13, 2014, from American
Psychological Association (APA):
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=3
3. Bapat, V. (2014, July 29). Choke Point: How To Make
Critical Decisions When Under Pressure. Retrieved
September 10, 2017, from
http://www.digitalistmag.com/innovation/2014/07/29
/make-critical-decisions-when-under-pressure-
01256483
4. Belkic, K. L., Landsbergis, P.A., Schnall, P.L., & Baker,
D. (2004). Is job strain a major source of
cardiovascular disease risk? Scandinavian Journal of
Work Environment Health, 30(2):85–128.
5. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research
methods. Oxford University Press, USA.
6. Burns, R. B., & Burns, R. A. (2008). Business research
methods and statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE
Publications.
7. Cannon, W.B. (1914). The emergency function of the
adrenal medulla in pain and the major emotions. Am.
J. Physiol., 33, 356-372.
8. Chandola, T., Britton, A., Brunner, E., Hemingway,
H., Malik, M., Kumari, M., Badrick, E., Kivimaki,
M., & Marmot, M. (2008). Work stress and coronary
heart disease: what are the mechanisms? European
Heart Journal, 29(5):640–648.
9. Coetzee, S.E. & Rothmann, S. (2005). Occupational
stress, organizational commitment and ill health of
employees at a higher education institution in South
Africa. South African Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 31(1), 47-54.
10. Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring Intuition
And Its Role In Managerial Decision Making.
Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33-54.
11. Dewe, P.J., O'Driscoll, M.P., & Cary L. Cooper, C.L.
(2012). Theories of Psychological Stress at Work. In:
R.J. Gatchel and I.Z. Schultz (eds.), Handbook of
Occupational Health and Wellness, (pp. 23-38). New
York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
12. Dias-Ferreira, E., Sousa, J. C., Melo, I., Morgado, P.,
Mesquita, A. R., Cerqueira, J. J., et al. (2009, July 31).
Chronic Stress Causes Front striatal Reorganization
and Affects Decision-Making. Science, 325, 621-625.
13. Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1991).Group Decision
Making Under Stress. Journal of Applied Psychology,
76(3), 473-478.
14. Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Johnston, J. (1999). Does
stress lead to a loss of team perspective? Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(4), 291-
302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.3.4.291
15. Duncan, S. J., Bras, B., &Paredis, C. J. (2008). An
Approach to Robust Decision Making under Severe
Uncertainty in Life-Cycle Design. International
Journal of Sustainable Design, 1(1), 45-50.
16. El Shikieri, A. B., & Musa, H. A. (2012). Factors
associated with occupational stress and their effects on
organizational performance in a Sudanese University.
Creative Education, 3(01), 134.
17. Elo, S., & Helvi, K. (2008).The Qualitative Content
Analysis Process. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
62(1), 107-115.
18. Ganster, D. C. (2005). Executive Job Demands
Suggestions from a Stress and Decision-Making
Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(3),
92–502.
19. Gatchel, R. J., & Schultz, I. Z. (2012). Handbook of
Occupational Health and Wellness. Handbooks in
Health, Work, and Disability. New York: Springer
Science and Business Media. DOI, 10, 978-1.
20. Greenberg, J. (2011). Behavior in Organizations. (10th
edition). England: Pearson Education Ltd.
21. Greenberg, E., & Baron, R.A. (2008). Behavior in
Organizations. (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Pearson-Prentice hall
22. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
23. Hansen, F. (2016). Stress in the Workplace. Retrieved
January 20, 2016, from
http://adrenalfatiguesolution.com/stress-in-the-
workplace/
24. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., & Hayes, T.L. (2002).
Business-unit-level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business
outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 268–279.
25. Hejase, H. J., Hejase A. J., & Hejase, H. A.N.J. (2012).
Quantitative Methods for Decision Makers:
Management Approach. Beirut: Dar Sader Publishers.
26. Hejase, A.J., & Hejase H.J. (2013). Research Methods:
A Practical Approach for Business Students, (2nd
edition). Philadelphia, PA: Masadir Inc.
27. Hellhammer, J., & Schubert, M. (2012). The
physiological response to Trier Social Stress Test
relates to subjective measures of stress during but not
before or after the test. Psych neuroendocrinology, 37,
119—124.
28. Johnston, J. H., Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E.
(1997).Vigilant and Hypervigilant Decision Making.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 614-622.
29. Kassam, K. S., Koslov, K., & Mendes, W. B. (2009).
Decisions under distress: Stress profiles influence
anchoring and adjustment. Psychological science,
20(11), 1394-1399.

The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences 2017; 3(12) http://www.jomenas.org
16
30. Kendall, E., Murphy, P., O’Neill, V., & Bursnall, S.
(2000). Occupational Stress: Factors that Contribute to
its Occurrence and Effective Management. Centre for
Human Services, Griffith University. Retrieved
January 20, 2016, from
http://www.mentalhealthpromotion.net/resources/occ
upational-stress-fractors-that-contribute-to-its-
occurrence-and-effective-management.pdf
31. Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic Decision Making.
Human Factors, 50(3), 456–460.
32. Kowalski-Trakofler, K.M., Vaught, C., & Scharf, T.
(2003). Judgment and decision making under stress:
an overview for emergency managers. International
Journal of Emergency Management, 1(3), 278-289.
33. Leger-Hornby, T., & Bleed, R. (2006). Work and life:
Achieving a reasonable balance. Retrieved August 1,
2012.
34. Macey, W.H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of
employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 1, 3–30.
35. Marshall, A. D. (2014). Toward a Model of Team
Decision Making Under Stress. (Honors Thesis).
Program in Psychology in the College of Sciences and
in The Burnett Honors College at the University of
Central Florida Orlando, Florida, USA. Retrieved
September 10, 2017, from
http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFH0004629/Marshall_Alyssa
_D_201405_BS.pdf
36. Mxenge, S.V., Dywili, M., & Bazana, S. (2014).
Organizational Stress and Employees’ Intention to
Quit amongst Administrative Personnel at the
University of Fort Hare, Eastern Cape, South Africa.
International Journal of Research in Social Sciences,
4(5), 13-29.
37. Nesse, R.M., & Young, E.A. (2000). Evolutionary
origins and functions of the stress response. Encycl.
Stress, 2, 79-84.
38. Noor, S., & Maad, N. (2008). Examining the
Relationship between Work-Life Conflict, Stress and
Turnover Intentions among Marketing Executives in
Pakistan. International Journal of Business and
Management, 3(11), 93-102.
39. Nunally, J. (1978). Psychometric (2nd edition). New
York: McGraw Hill.
40. Oosthuizen, J.D., & Van Lill, B. (2008). Coping with
stress in the workplace, SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 34(1), 64- 69.
41. Oxford Brooks University. (2012). Stress management.
Retrieved January 20, 2016, from
https://www.brookes.ac.uk/student/services/health/str
ess.html
42. Purcell, J. (2009). Maintaining employee engagement
in difficult times. Employee Engagement Summit
2009.
43. Robertson-Smith, Gemma, & Markwick, Carl (2009).
Employee Engagement A review of current thinking.
Brighton, UK: Institute for Employment Studies.
Retrieved September 10, 2017, from
http://www.employmentstudies.co.uk/system/files/res
ources/files/469.pdf
44. Salas, E., Driskell, J.E., & Hughes, S. (1996).
Introduction: The study of stress and human
performance. In J.E. Driskell & E. Salas (Eds.), Stress
and Human Performance (pp. 2- 38). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
45. Slovic, P., Peters, E., Finucane, M. L., &MacGregor,
D. G. (2005). Affect, Risk, and Decision Making.
Health Psychology, 24(4 (Suppl.)), S35–S40.
46. Sushmitha, Uma Devi (2011). A Study on Stress
Management and Coping Strategies With Reference to
IT Companies. Journal of Information Technology
and Economic Development 2(2), 30-48.
47. Thayer, J. F., Verkuil, B., Brosschot, J.F.,
Kampschroer, K., West, A., Sterling, C., Christie, I.C.,
Abernethy, D., Sollers, J.J., Cizza, G., Marques, A.H.,
& Sternberg, E.M. (2011). Effects of the Physical
Work Environment on Physiological Measures of
Stress. European Journal Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil.,
17(4): 431–439.
48. The American Institute of Stress. (2017). Stress Effects.
Retrieved September 10, 2017, from
https://www.stress.org/stress-effects/
49. Useem, M., Cook, J., & Sutton, L. (2005).Developing
Leaders for Decision Making Under Stress: Wildland
Firefighters in the South Canyon Fire and Its
Aftermath. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 4(4), 461–485.
50. Von Dawans, B., Kirschbaum, C., & Heinrichs, M.
(2010). The Trier Social Stress Test for groups (TSST‐
G): A new research tool for controlled simultaneous
social stress exposure in a group format. Psych
neuroendocrinology, 36(4), 514–522.
51. Yu, R. (2016). Stress potentiates decision biases: A
stress-induced deliberation-to-intuition (SIDI) model.
Neurobiol Stress, 3, 83–95.
52. Zhao Y., & Zhang, S. (2014). Application of
Information-Gap Decision Theory to Generation Asset
Allocation. In: Li K., Xue Y., Cui S., Niu Q. (eds)
Intelligent Computing in Smart Grid and Electrical
Vehicles. LSMS/ICSEE 2014. Communications in
Computer and Information Science, 463. Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg.
Received October 24, 2017; revised October 27, 2017; accepted November 01, 2017; published online December 01, 2017