Cited by 38Multi-Criteria Decision MakingAI and HR TechnologiesJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior

Evaluation of positive employee experience using hesitant fuzzy analytic hierarchy process

Yildiz, Didem, Temur, Gul Tekin, Beskese, Ahmet, Bozbura, Faik Tunc·2020·Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems

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

Crossref · 10.3233/jifs-179467

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
Venue
Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems
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