Evaluation of positive employee experience using hesitant fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
Abstract
In contemporary business world, employees are one of the core competencies of organizations and to attract, retain, and engage talented employees is crucial for organizations for sustainable success. Understanding and leveraging employee experience is one of the tending topics for organizations because positive employee experience affects employees’ attachment, engagement and loyalty to the organization. Human resource management departments and leaders can apply different strategic initiations to boost employee experience in their organizations. In this study, we aim to design an integrated model for leaders and organizations to guide them for creating positive employee experience to have engaging, enjoyable, and productive work environment. The integrated model includes two phases: (1) evaluation of criteria affecting positive employee experience by hesitant fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (HFAHP) and (2) developing a practical scoring procedure to help companies with their self-assessments by using fuzzy simple additive weighting (FSAW) method. In the first phase, four main and sixteen sub-criteria are taken into consideration. For the second phase, the application of the integrated model is demonstrated with a numerical example from real world. The results indicate that for positive employee experience, leadership has the highest importance followed by human capitals’ development opportunity, positive organizational culture, and communication.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The hesitant fuzzy AHP allows the superiority relationship between criteria to be determined more flexibly than traditional AHP.
“For instance, while the traditional AHP requires selecting one of the exact numbers from the 1-9 scale to express the superiority relationship between criteria x and y, the hesitant fuzzy AHP allows this relationship to be determined more flexibly [22], [50].”
From Trustworthiness Evaluation of Large Language Models Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making (2025) · cites this paper as [50]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Trustworthiness Evaluation of Large Language Models Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making
Aksoy, M., Adem, A., & Dağdeviren, M. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3612568 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“The Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Set (HFLTS) is a relatively recent concept in fuzzy logic [50].”
- Authors
- Yildiz, D., Temur, G. T., Beskese, A., & Bozbura, F. T.
- Affiliations
- Bahçeşehir University (TR)
- Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkey
- ORCID
- Yildiz, Didem
- Venue
- Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-10-22
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1043-1058
- ISSN
- 1064-1246 (ISSN-L)
- 1875-8967
- OpenAlex
- W2982007589
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 1.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Keywords
- employee engagement, employee retention, employee loyalty, leadership, human capital development, organizational culture, organizational communication, work environment, fuzzy multi-criteria decision making, fuzzy simple additive weighting, organizational self-assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review