he Role of Decentralized Management in Enhancing the Quality of Institutional Performance: An Analytical Study of the Opinions of a Sample of Department Managers in Al-Qadisiyyah Governorates

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, on the condition that users give exact credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if they made any changes. The Role of Decentralized Management in Enhancing the Quality of Institutional Performance: An Analytical Study of the Opinions of a Sample of Department Managers in Al-Qadisiyyah Governorates Abbas Ahmed Hussein  Ministry of Education, Al-Diwaniyah Commercial Preparatory Department, Iraq Abstract This study looked at how giving more power to local managers—through decentralization—can improve the way public departments work in Al-Qadisiyyah governorate. The research focused on two types: administrative decentralization (like allowing managers to make decisions) and financial decentralization (like letting them control budgets). A total of 102 managers answered a questionnaire, and the answers were studied using SPSS version 29. The results showed clearly that both types of decentralization help institutions perform better. Managers who have more control can work faster, solve problems on their own, and feel more responsible. Administrative decentralization had a slightly bigger effect than financial, but both were important. The model used for analysis was strong and passed all checks. The managers' answers showed that decentralization helps reduce delays, improves planning, and makes services more effective. Based on this, the study suggests that more decision-making power and financial control should be given to local departments. But there also needs to be clear rules, proper training, and follow-up. This way, decentralization can really make a positive difference in how the public sector works. The study gives useful ideas for improving management in government institutions in Iraq. Keywords: Decentralization, Managers, Public Services, Decision Power, Iraq. JEL Classification codes: H11, H72, H83, D73, O53. Suggested citation: Hussein, A.A. (2025). The Role of Decentralized Management in Enhancing the Quality of Institutional Performance: An Analytical Study of the Opinions of a Sample of Department Managers in Al-Qadisiyyah Governorates. European Journal of Management, Economics and Business, 2(5), 52-65. DOI: 10.59324/ejmeb.2025.2(5).05 Introduction Many countries now they are starting to give more power to local managers and departments. This is called decentralization. It is when not everything must go to the top people to decide. Instead, lower levels also take decisions and manage things. This idea became important in last years, because it helps to make things faster and more useful. In Iraq, many public offices still depend on central government in Baghdad for many decisions, and this cause delay and weakness in services. In Al-Qadisiyyah governorate, local managers sometimes cannot do anything until they get permission, and this is not good for performance. Some researchers said that when decentralization EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 5 | 2025 53 is used, performance of institution becomes better because the people who do the work also take decisions (Fory et al., 2021; Al-Nawafah & Almarshad, 2020). Also, giving more power to local offices helps to save time, make workers more motivated, and improve the quality of services (Akdemir et al., 2017; Ibrahim, 2024). This study wants to explore if decentralization really help in improving performance in the public institutions in Al-Qadisiyyah. We try to ask the managers in different departments what they think about decentralization and how it affects their work. We use questionnaires to get their answers and then analyze it with statistics. Other studies in other countries show decentralization has positive results in health programs, education, and economy (Bindeeba et al., 2025; Digdowiseiso, 2022). Also, decentralization is good when people in the institution have enough training and when there is good system to check and support their decisions (Sun et al., 2022; Feng et al., 2022). But sometimes, if there is no good plan or the managers are not ready, decentralization can cause confusion or problems. So, we want to know if decentralization helps or not in our local context. This is important to understand how to make the public sector work better in Iraq now and in the future. Research Problem The problem of this research is that many public institutions in Al-Qadisiyyah still work in old way where managers must wait for orders from higher level before they can take actions. This causes delays in work and sometimes reduces the quality of services. Even when the local managers know what to do, they cannot do it fast because of too much central control. Some offices don’t have power to manage budget or people, and this makes it hard to improve performance. Also, there is not enough studies in Iraq that show if decentralization really help in making institutional performance better. So, this research tries to find if giving more power to local managers can improve the work and make the institution more active and effective. Main Research Question Does decentralized management help improve the quality of institutional performance in public departments of Al-Qadisiyyah governorate? Hypothesis: Main Hypothesis: Decentralized management has positive effect on improving the quality of institutional performance in public departments in Al-Qadisiyyah. Sub-Hypothesis 1: Administrative decentralization has positive effect on institutional performance. Sub-Hypothesis 2: Financial decentralization has positive effect on institutional performance. Literature Review Many researchers talk about decentralization because it became important in modern management. In study of Fory et al. (2021), they say that when institutions use decentralization, the managers at local level can do better work because they do not need to wait too many instructions from center. This makes the work faster and more flexible. Also, decentralization can help improve communication between departments and reduce bureaucracy. Other studies from different place show that if decentralization is done with clear rules, it gives good results in performance. But sometimes if there is not enough control or training, decentralization can also cause problems also. In study of Bangchokdee & Mia (2016), they find that in hotels in Thailand, using decentralization and giving responsibility to local managers help to improve performance when top managers also support it and use good measures. When top leaders only say decentralization but don’t give real EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 5 | 2025 54 power, the result is not good. Also, if decentralization happens without monitor and training, workers make mistakes or feel lost. Another study by Suryanef et al. (2023) in higher education in Indonesia show that when university give more decision power to lecturers, they feel more motivated and do better teaching. The leadership and decentralization together make good effects. But if leaders do not support staff, decentralization becomes just word without action. Arif & Chishti (2022) talk about fiscal decentralization and how it helps economic growth. They say when local institutions have control over money, they can use it for what people really need. In many developing countries, the central government doesn’t know what small area needs, so local government is better for deciding. But if there are no strong rules, it can lead to misuse of money. Also, Digdowiseiso (2022) do many studies about decentralization and poverty. He says if decentralization is done good, with transparency and participation, it helps poor people because services become closer to them. But when local leaders are not trained or not honest, then decentralization creates more corruption and does not help anyone. Ibrahim (2024) explains how decentralization can help in improving public services. He says that when departments control their own work, like budget or hiring, they solve problems faster. But he also says that decentralization needs planning, because some places are not ready and don’t have skills to manage. Sun et al. (2022) use models to see how decentralization affects job satisfaction in construction projects. They find that when employees have more decision space, they are happier and more productive. But they also say that too much decentralization without guide makes confusion and conflict in teams. Akdemir et al. (2017) study shows how decentralization in medical education changes the quality. They say that when local units make plans for teaching, the students get more benefits, but only when there is good evaluation system. Without it, quality becomes different in every place. Shan et al. (2021) study about environment says that fiscal decentralization can reduce CO2 if local authorities use money for green policy. This means decentralization not only for organization, but also for big goals like climate and sustainability. Rohma et al. (2023) study the effect of decentralization on groups and teamwork. They say decentralization works better when team members trust each other and when there is low conflict. If teams have many problems, decentralization may increase fight because there is no clear boss. Al-Nawafah & Almarshad (2020) talk about Jordan universities. They say when employees have some control over work and not wait for everything from central, they feel more satisfied and work harder. But we still need some control from main office to avoid problems. Khan et al. (2021) discusses about how decentralization and institutions quality can help reduce CO2 emissions. They find that decentralization works better in countries that have strong rules and good education systems. If institutions are weak, decentralization does nothing or causes more problems. Feng et al. (2022) say that decentralization with digital finance help promote green innovation in China. When cities or regions have power to manage their finances, and have digital tools, they make better projects and help economy. But again, we need strong system to monitor. Bindeeba et al. (2025) explain how decentralization help in health sector in Uganda. They say that in HIV and TB programs, when monitoring and reporting was also decentralized, the services become more efficient. So decentralization is not only decision, but also follow-up and feedback. EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 5 | 2025 55 This literature shows that decentralization is complex. It can give many benefits if done with planning and training. It can make management better, workers happier, and services faster. But if it is done fast without rules, it gives bad results. Many studies talk about fiscal decentralization; others focus on administrative part. All agree that success needs participation, clear roles, and monitoring. Spatial and Temporal Limits This study is only for public departments inside Al-Qadisiyyah governorate. It does not include other places in Iraq or private institutions. The research looks at what managers think in this area only. For time, the study was done in 2025, between February and April. So, all the data and answers come from this period and maybe not same in other times. Population and Sample The population for this research is all the public department managers in Al-Qadisiyyah governorate. These include general directors, department heads, and unit leaders who work in different government offices. They are people who have responsibility for running and organizing the work in their institutions. Because it is not possible to reach every single manager in the governorate, the study uses a sample to represent the population. The sample size is 102 managers. This number is selected using simple random sampling method. Every manager had equal chance to be part of the study. We collect the names of managers and choose randomly using statistical table. This makes the result more neutral and without bias. To calculate the sample size, we use this formula: n = N / (1 + N * e²) (1) Where: • n = sample size • N = population size (estimated to be 140 managers in the governorate) • e = margin of error (we take 0.05) So: n = 140 / (1 + 140 * 0.05²) n = 140 / (1 + 140 * 0.0025) n = 140 / (1 + 0.45) n = 140 / 1.45 ≈ 96.5 After rounding, the sample size is about 96.5, but we received 102 valid responses from the managers who completed the questionnaire. This number is acceptable and good for analysis, and it fits with the population and the research goals. The Theoretical Concept of Research Decentralization needs good system to check if local decisions are correct. But if there are no clear rules and training, decentralization maybe not help and make problems. The theory of decentralization comes from public administration and management thinking. Performance in institution can be measured by goals, quality, speed, and feedback. In old times, all decisions come EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 5 | 2025 56 from one place, now decentralization say different (Akdemir, 2017; Al-Nawafah & Almarshad, 2020). Performance in institution can be measured by goals, quality, speed, and feedback. The theory says when decentralization increases, performance maybe also go better. Administrative decentralization gives managers power to do planning and control in local level. When local department control own budget, they can fix local problems fast. Financial decentralization is about using and controlling money at a local level without asking center. Administrative decentralization gives managers power to do planning and control in local level. Decentralization needs good system to check if local decisions are correct. Institutional performance means how good the organization does the job and reaches goals. The theory says when decentralization increases, performance maybe also go better. Decentralization means the power goes down from top to down people (Arif & Chishti, 2022; Bangchokdee & Mia, 2016). Administrative decentralization gives managers power to do planning and control in local level. Performance in institution can be measured by goals, quality, speed, and feedback. The theory says when decentralization increases, performance maybe also go better. There are two big types of decentralization: administrative and financial. In old time, all decisions come from one place, now decentralization say different (Bindeeba et al., 2025) (Digdowiseiso, 2022). Performance in institution can be measured by goals, quality, speed, and feedback. This research uses this theory to test if it works in Al-Qadisiyyah governorate. This research takes decentralization as independent variable and performance as dependent. If managers take decisions fast, it helps to make service better for people. The theory says when decentralization increases, performance maybe also go better (Feng et al., 2022) (Fory et al., 2021) (Ibrahim, 2024). The theory says when decentralization increases, performance maybe also go better. In theory, decentralization improves communication and reduces delays in work. If managers take decisions fast, it helps to make service better for people. When local department control own budget, they can fix local problems fast. But if there are no clear rules and training, decentralization maybe not help and make problems. Administrative decentralization gives managers power to do planning and control in local level. When local department control own budget, they can fix local problems fast. But if there are no clear rules and training, decentralization maybe not help and make problems. The theory says when decentralization increases, performance maybe also go better. If managers take decisions fast, it helps to make service better for people (Khan et al., 2021; Rohma et al., 2023) (Shan et al., 2021). There are two big types of decentralization: administrative and financial. Some researchers say decentralization is part of reform to make government modern. This research uses this theory to test if it works in Al-Qadisiyyah governorate. Institutional performance means how good the organization does the job and reaches goals. Performance in institution can be measured by goals, quality, speed, and feedback. Also, decentralization helps workers feel more responsible because they are not just waiting for orders. This research takes decentralization as independent variable and performance as dependent. Performance in institution can be measured by goals, quality, speed, and feedback. In theory, decentralization improves communication and reduces delays in work. Many studies say decentralization helps improve performance, but some say it needs good training. Administrative decentralization gives managers power to do planning and control in local level. If managers take decisions fast, it helps to make service better for people. Also, decentralization helps workers feel more responsible because they do not just wait for orders. The theory of decentralization comes from public administration and management thinking. Institutional performance means how good the organization does the job and reaches goals (Sun et al., 2022; Suryanef et al., 2023). Many studies say decentralization helps improve performance, but some say it needs good training. Administrative decentralization gives managers power to do planning and control in local level. When local department control own budget, they can fix local problems fast. Also, decentralization EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 5 | 2025 57 helps workers feel more responsible because they are not just waiting for orders. The theory of decentralization comes from public administration and management thinking. Performance in institution can be measured by goals, quality, speed, and feedback. But if there are no clear rules and training, decentralization maybe not help and make problems. If managers take decisions fast, it helps to make service better for people. Also, decentralization helps workers feel more responsible because they do not just wait for orders. Many studies say decentralization helps improve performance, but only when organizations have system to support it. Financial decentralization is important part of theory. It says when local department can control their budget, they can make better use of money. But also need to be responsible and follow rules. Some places in world use decentralization good and show better performance. Other places try but fail because there is not enough support. This research uses all these ideas to check in real life if decentralization helps public departments in Al-Qadisiyyah. We ask managers and use theory to compare their answers. The theory helps to explain why decentralization maybe change how people work and improve results. Discussion and Results This part of the research talks about what we found from the data we collect. To reach these results, we use questionnaire that was given to 102 managers in Al-Qadisiyyah governorate. The questions cover two main parts of decentralization: administrative and financial, and also one part about institutional performance. The answers were on Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. After we take the answers, we enter the data into computer and use SPSS program to do analysis. We use many methods to study data. First, we check reliability of the questions using Cronbach’s Alpha to know if the items are consistent and good. Then we do descriptive analysis to find out the average and standard deviation for each item and see how strong the agreement is from the managers. We also use KMO and Bartlett test to check if the data is good for factor analysis. Then we calculate correlation between decentralization and performance to see if they move together or not. At the end, we use regression analysis to test if decentralization really has effect on performance or not, and if yes, how strong it is. Also, we do diagnostic tests to make sure the regression model is good and there are no problems inside. All these steps help us understand what the managers think and how decentralization maybe improve or not improve the institutional work. The next tables and explanations show these findings in detail. 1Study tool: In this research we use questionnaires as the main tool to collect data from the managers. The questionnaire is designed to cover the main variables of the study. It has three parts. The first part is for general information about the respondents like gender, age, qualification, and years of experience. This helps us understand the background of the sample. The second part is about decentralization, and it includes two dimensions. The first dimension is administrative decentralization, and it has 6 items that ask about how much power and responsibility is given to the managers. The second dimension is financial decentralization, and it also has 6 items asking about budget control and financial decision in the department. The third part of the questionnaire is about institutional performance, and it has 10 items that measure how the department performs, like reaching goals, speed of service, and employee satisfaction. All items in the second and third parts are measured by 5-point Likert scale: (1) Strongly disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) Neutral, (4) Agree, (5) Strongly agree. The questionnaire was reviewed by experts to check the content and was distributed manually to 102 public department managers in Al-Qadisiyyah. After collecting the answers, we entered the data into SPSS version 29 to do analysis. We use this software to check EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 5 | 2025 58 reliability, do descriptive statistics, calculate correlation, and run regression models. The tool was helpful and clear for the participants, and the data collected was complete and ready for analysis. Table 1. Cronbach’s Alpha Results for the Questionnaire Dimensions Dimension Number of Items Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Level Administrative Decentralization 6 0.902 Excellent Financial Decentralization 6 0.886 Excellent Institutional Performance 10 0.918 Excellent Overall Questionnaire 22 0.934 Excellent The results from the three tables show that the questionnaire and the data used in this study are strong and reliable. In Table 1, we see the values of Cronbach’s Alpha for each part of the questionnaire. This number tells us if the items inside each section are consistent with each other or not. If the value is more than 0.7, it is good. In our case, the values are very high: 0.902 for administrative decentralization, 0.886 for financial decentralization, and 0.918 for institutional performance. Also, the total reliability for the full questionnaire with all 22 items is 0.934. This means the questions are stable and give trustworthy answers. It also means the participants understood the items and answered in a consistent way. Table 2. KMO and Bartlett’s Test Results Test Value Interpretation Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure 0.921 Excellent Sampling Adequacy Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Chi²) 1785.342 Significant Degrees of Freedom (df) 231 – Significance Level (p-value) 0.000 Less than 0.05 (Significant) In Table 2, we check if the data is good to use for more analysis. First test is KMO, which should be above 0.6 to be acceptable. Our result is 0.921, which is excellent and shows that the data is suitable for factor analysis. The second test is Bartlett’s test, which checks if the data has relationships between the variables. If the p-value is less than 0.05, we can continue. Our Chisquare value is 1785.342, and p = 0.000, so it is significant. This means the items in the questionnaire are related and can be studied together. Table 3. Correlation between Variables and the Total Questionnaire Score Variable/Dimension Pearson’s Correlation (r) Significance Level (p-value) Interpretation Administrative Decentralization 0.781 0.000 Strong positive correlation Financial Decentralization 0.756 0.000 Strong positive correlation Institutional Performance 0.839 0.000 Very strong positive correlation Total Score 1.000 – Perfect correlation (self) In Table 3, we see the correlation between each main dimension and the total questionnaire score. Correlation tells us how much two things move together. For administrative decentralization, the correlation is 0.781, and for financial decentralization it is 0.756. Both are strong and positive, meaning as decentralization increases, the total performance is also likely to increase. The institutional performance itself has correlation 0.839 with total score, which is very strong. This EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 5 | 2025 59 shows that all dimensions are well connected and reflect the total idea of the questionnaire. So, all these results confirm that our tool is good, and the data is ready for deeper analysis. Research Data Description Before we show the results in detail, it is important to give short explanation about the data we collect from the field. This helps us to understand who are the people that answer the questionnaire and what their background is. It also gives clear picture about the structure of the sample and how the information was collected. This part includes descriptions of demographic data like gender, age, qualification, and experience. These details help to see if the sample is balanced and if the answers represent real managers in the public departments of Al-Qadisiyyah governorate. The next part explains this information in numbers and percentage. Table 4. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents (N = 102) Variable Category Frequency (n) Percentage (%) Gender Male 73 71.6% Female 29 28.4% Age Under 30 12 11.8% 30–39 28 27.5% 40–49 35 34.3% 50 and above 27 26.4% Academic Qualification Diploma 10 9.8% Bachelor's Degree 52 51.0% Master's Degree 30 29.4% Doctorate 10 9.8% Years of Experience Less than 5 years 8 7.8% 5–10 years 24 23.5% 11–15 years 39 38.2% More than 15 years 31 30.4% The demographic data in Table 4 show important information about the sample of the study. The total number of respondents is 102 managers from public departments in Al-Qadisiyyah governorate. For gender, the table shows that 73 of the respondents are male (71.6%), while only 29 are female (28.4%). This means that most leadership roles in public departments are still held by men, and the number of female managers is much lower, which may reflect the structure of management positions in Iraq's public sector. For age, the largest group is between 40 and 49 years old, with 35 managers (34.3%), followed by 30–39 years with 28 respondents (27.5%). Managers aged 50 and above are 27 (26.4%), and those under 30 are only 12 (11.8%). This result shows that most managers are middle-aged, which is expected because such positions often require experience. This also means that the sample includes people with enough work background to give useful answers about decentralization and performance. The academic qualifications show that more than half of the managers have a bachelor's degree (51.0%), while 29.4% have a master's degree and only 9.8% have a doctorate. Another 9.8% have a diploma. This means most of the managers have a good educational level, which is important for understanding management issues. The presence of postgraduate qualifications (around 39.2%) also shows that many managers are well-educated and can deal with advanced topics like decentralization policy and institutional effectiveness. For years of experience, the biggest group is those with 11 to 15 years of work, which is 39 respondents (38.2%). This is followed by those with more than 15 years (30.4%), then 5 to 10 years (23.5%), and the smallest group is managers with less than 5 years (7.8%). These results mean that most respondents are experienced and have been working in the system long enough to observe the real impact of decentralization. This gives more credibility to their answers because they are EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 5 | 2025 60 not new or untrained. the table shows that the sample includes both male and female managers, with a wide age range and different levels of education and experience. The sample is diverse and suitable for analyzing the topic of this study. The strong representation of experienced and educated managers makes the results more reliable. Figure 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents (N = 102) The results from the descriptive statistics in Tables 5, 6, and 7 show how the managers in AlQadisiyyah governorate see the situation of decentralization and institutional performance in their departments: Table 5. Descriptive Statistics – Administrative Decentralization (N = 102) Item Mean Std. Deviation Likert Interpretation Relative Importance (%) Authority is delegated to lower-level managers effectively. 3.670 0.520 High 73.400 Decision-making is shared across different administrative levels. 3.900 0.480 High 78.000 Employees are encouraged to participate in setting goals. 3.850 0.590 High 77.000 Responsibilities are clearly defined and distributed. 4.000 0.550 High 80.000 There is flexibility in handling administrative procedures. 4.100 0.510 High 82.000 The organization adopts a bottom-up approach in administrative planning. 4.200 0.470 Very High 84.000 Overall Dimension Score 3.953 0.520 High 78.733