1.4. Research hypotheses

In this paper, the following hypotheses are used to guide the analysis process and the achievement of results:

Ho: Elementary school principals in the No. 6 primary education zone in the City of Durango, who are assessed with a higher level of risk avoidance in their decision-making process under uncertain conditions, achieve low perception scores about their successful decisions in the school.

That is, from the perception of users of managerial decisions, there are no differences between the group of principals who are perceived with a higher level of risk avoidance, and the group of principals who are perceived with low scores in their successful decisions, both groups are not different, they are associated; so the level of risk aversion is associated with the low scores assigned to successful managerial decisions.

Hi: Elementary school principals in the federal primary education zone No. 6 in the City of Durango who are assessed with a higher level of risk avoidance in their decision-making process under uncertainty conditions achieve different perception scores of their successful decisions in the school.

That is to say; the perception of a higher level of risk avoidance in the principal´s decisions of the school, is not associated to the perception of low scores of the successful decisions principal´s in the school, this means that are significant differences in the assessments of these scores.

According to the previous hypothesis, the aim is to demonstrate if risk aversion in the terms of the present study and with the subjects surveyed, is significant or not in the decisional process for the achievement of decisions successful.

2Methodology

The technique used in this study is the one of survey,[8]; [9], since this technique starts from the definition of a problem, its determination of variables, its hypothesis, the taking, organizing and data analysis, until reaching the solution of the problem [18]. For the case of the present investigation; the principal´s successful decisions in environments of uncertainty, the survey technique applies properly since all the steps of the technique are established in a timely manner.

Taking as a starting point the Bonnefoy instrument [14]: Management evaluation scale whose Cronbach Alpha value is .97, a conversion was made of its three dimensions: institutional management, leadership and teamwork and the attitudinal cognitive dimension, by which their items were transformed into the decision process within each dimension, incorporating a fourth dimension called decisions in an environment of uncertainty and risk aversion.

3Results

3.1Analysis of significant differences between two groups, t test for one sample

In order to test for statistical significance to the successful decision-making variable in uncertainty condition and the risk aversion variable in the directive decision-making, Table 1 shows the values ​​of t test with statistical significance, which points the rejection or retention of statistical hypothesis (Ho) in each item.

Table 1. Ttest values, in t test for one sample

No.	Item	T test value	Sig. Bi.	Ho
1	When deciding, plan ....	4.519	.000	Reject
2	When deciding to coordinate efforts with authorities educ.	5.085	.000	Reject
3	To decide identify potential problems	5.810	.000	Reject
4	In its decision, it knows how to modify the action plans	6.375	.000	Reject
5	In its decisions it keeps alert to the changes	5.185	.000	Reject
6	In his decisions clarifies roles and functions	4.072	.000	Reject
7	Your decisions communicate them clearly and accurately	4.195	.000	Reject
8	In their decision, quality standards are communicated	4.386	.000	Reject
9	In strategic decisions, it directs towards goals	4.942	.000	Reject
10	When deciding to design control and monitoring mechanisms.	4.589	.000	Reject
11	In his decisions he demonstrates the capacity to persuade	4.999	.000	Reject
12	In deciding to visualize the potential of the staff	2.348	.022	Reject
13	When deciding to visualize and evaluate alternatives	1.915	.060	Retain
14	In the face of labor pressures you can decide clearly	4.403	.000	Reject
15	Demonstrates creativity and flexibility in decisions	7.982	.000	Reject
16	Deciding reflexively and analyze your own work	5.989	.000	Reject
17	When deciding anticipates problems and changes of the environment	5.198	.000	Reject
18	In its decisions it is able to evaluate the information	6.565	.000	Reject
19	In deciding, it conveys enthusiasm and confidence	5.548	.000	Reject
20	Their successful decisions demonstrate effectiveness and results	1.794	.078	Retain
21	Their successful decisions meet institutional and user needs	1.914	.061	Retain
22	Your successful decisions generate real recognition	4.394	.000	Rechaza
23	Their successful decisions are taken as example	1.836	.072	Retain
24	Their successful decisions have successfull transformed the institutional context	1.802	.077	Retain
25	Their successful decisions have made a positive difference in the lives of users	5.042	.000	Reject
26	Has made successful decisions even with absence of information anticipating future events	2.782	.007	Reject
27	Has made successful decisions even in situations of ambiguity, applying different strategies	3.813	.000	Reject
28	Has made successful decisions despite changing situation, with flexible strategies ability	2.698	.005	Reject
29	Decide in uncertain situations avoiding the manual, deciding with autonomy	3.082	.003	Reject
30	When deciding in unclear situations, the principal is creative and enterprising.	3.227	.002	Reject
31	When deciding, the principal chooses to win more generally but in some ways loses	.417	.678	Retain
32	When deciding the principal, prefers to win a little less in everything, in order not to lose anything in any field	1.143	.258	Retain
33	The principal decides more to invest in a long-term decision that promises a lot, but that short-term gives nothing.	1.897	.063	Retain
34	The principal decides more for durable and firm solutions, but with risk, than for the immediate, provisional and safe solutions	3.457	.001	Reject
35	The principal always decides for known and safe decisions without putting the decision at risk	3.892	.000	Reject
36	The principal always applies the procedures and the manual to avoid uncertain decisions	2.622	.011	Reject
37	In deciding against difficult and changing situations, the principal develops different alternatives	4.288	.000	Reject
38	In the face of uncertain and uncertain events, the principal creatively decides, to developing innovative responses	4.986	.000	Reject

*With probability of error .05

As can be seen in Table 1, in all items where Ho is rejected: there are significant differences in the item evaluations from the respondents, so that the affirmative sense of the item is proved, the items are approving; it only retains Ho in the items: in deciding to visualize and analyze alternatives, successful decisions, effective results, successful decisions, institutional and user needs, successful decisions, taking them as examples and successful decisions, institutional context transformation. The retention of Ho implies that the items are disapproving, in this sense, the users of the management decisions disapprove with statistical significance to these items. Attention is drawn to Ho's non-rejection of some successful decision-making items, which points to his approving sense: successful decisions, positive difference in users' lives, successful decisions, lack of information, successful decisions, situations of ambiguity, decisions successes, changing situations, etc.

The central point of the analysis is located in the items that were defined to measure the level of risk aversion, of 8 items dedicated to that dimension, Ho is retained only in three of them: choose to win more generally, prefer to win a little less in everything and decides to invest in a long term decision, in these items the retaining of Ho, infers the presence of risk aversion. In the other hand, in two items the affirmation of the presence of risk aversion in the directive decision is raised: the director always decides for well-known and safe solutions, and the director always applies manuals and procedures to avoid uncertain decisions, where Ho is rejected, with that the presence of risk aversion is affirmed; of 8 items of this dimension, in five of them we have presence with statistical significance of risk aversion.