Voting Decision-Making in Nigerian Higher Institutions: A Hierarchical Decision Model Approach

The selection of academic leaders, particularly Deans, plays a critical role in shaping institutional governance, research direction, and administrative effectiveness. However, decision-making processes in many higher institutions remain largely subjective, often influenced by informal biases and non-transparent voting practices. The study demonstrates how a structured MCDM framework can operationalize transparent and auditable academic leadership selection within a higher education institution. A case study was conducted at the Federal Polytechnic, Ile-Oluji, Nigeria, involving four candidates evaluated across four criteria: Leadership, Intelligence, Quality of Publication, and Candidate Availability. Criteria weights were rigorously derived using AHP through pairwise comparison matrices, yielding priority weights of 0.25, 0.30, 0.25, and 0.20, respectively, with a consistency ratio (CR = 0.022) indicating acceptable judgment consistency. Candidate performance scores obtained from 20 respondents were normalized and aggregated using both AHP-derived weights and a linear weighted-sum model. The results consistently identified Chief Lecturer B as the most suitable candidate, achieving the highest ranking across arithmetic and geometric mean evaluations. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the ranking under moderate variations in criteria weights. The study demonstrates that integrating AHP into institutional voting processes enhances the decision operationalization framework, transparency, and defensibility of leadership selection. While the findings are context-specific, the proposed framework provides a replicable decision-support model for improving merit-based governance in higher education institutions.