Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fair-satisfied-based group decision making with prospect theory under DHLTS: The application in enterprise human resource allocation

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Group decision making (GDM) can make full use of information in the group and consider perspectives of multiple stakeholders, which matches the characteristic of enterprise human resource (HR) allocation. This paper tries to optimize the enterprise HR allocation by establishing a fair-satisfied-based GDM model with two objectives of fairness and satisfaction respectively. Firstly, double hierarchy linguistic term set is used to collect the evaluation information of decision makers (DMs). Then, two quantification methods for DMs’ satisfaction perception and fairness perception are respectively provided respectively based on the Prospect theory. Moreover, combining with the Pareto optimal idea, the fair-satisfied-based GDM model is designed and applied to deal with an enterprise HR allocation problem. Finally, some comprehensive analyses are made to validate the proposed method.

Graphic abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  1. Argyris N, Karsu O, Yavuz M (2022) Fair resource allocation: Using welfare-based dominance constraints. Eur J Oper Res 297(2):560–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.05.003

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Basık F, Gedik B, Ferhatosmanoglu H, Wu KL (2021) Fair task allocation in crowdsourced delivery. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 14(4):1040–1053. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2018.2854866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bergh DD, Ketchen DJ, Orlandi I, Heugens PPMAR, Boyd BK (2019) Information asymmetry in management research: Past accomplishments and future opportunities. J Manage. 45(1):122–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318798026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bolton GE, Ockenfels A (2020) ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Am Econ Rev 90(1):166–193. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.1.166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carneiro J, Saraiva P, Conceicao L, Santos R, Marreiros G, Novais P (2019) Predicting satisfaction: Perceived decision quality by decision-makers in web-based group decision support systems. Neurocomputing. 338:399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2018.05.126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen X, Zhao L, Ozdemir MS, Liang HM (2018) Mixed strategy to allocate resources with air pollution treatment in China: based on the analytic network process and large-group decision-making method. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 25(17):16885–16899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1826-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Colquitt JA, Conlon DE, Wesson MJ, Porter COLH, Ng KY (2001) Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J Appl Psychol. 86(3):425. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.425

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Crawshaw JR, Cropanzano R, Bell CM, Nadisic T (2013) Organizational justice: New insights from behavioural ethics. Hum Relat. 66(7):885–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713485609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ficco M, Esposito C, Palmieri F, Castiglione A (2018) A coral-reefs and game theory-based approach for optimizing elastic cloud resource allocation. Future Gener Comput Syst 78:343–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2016.05.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Friedkin NE, Proskurnikov AV, Mei WJ, Bono F (2019) Mathematical structures in group decision-making on resource allocation distributions. Sci Rep. 9(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37847-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fu C, Chang WJ, Yang SL (2020) Multiple criteria group decision making based on group satisfaction. Inf Sci. 518:309–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2020.01.021

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. George J, Wallio S (2017) Organizational justice and millennial turnover in public accounting. Empl Relat. 39(1):112–126. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-11-2015-0208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ghoushchi SJ, Khazaeili M (2019) G-Numbers: importance-necessity concept in uncertain environment. Int J Manag Fuzzy Syst. 5(1):27–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gou XJ, Liao HC, Xu ZS, Herrera F (2017) Double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and MULTIMOORA method: A case of study to evaluate the implementation status of haze controlling measures. Inf Fusion 38:22–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gou XJ, Xu XR, Deng FM, Zhou W, Herrera-Viedma E (2023) Medical health resources allocation evaluation in public health emergencies by an improved ORESTE method with linguistic preference orderings. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10700-023-09409-3

  16. Gou XJ, Xu ZS, Herrera F (2018) Consensus reaching process for large-scale group decision making with double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Knowl Based Syst 157:20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.05.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gou XJ, Xu ZS, Liao HC, Herrera F (2021) Consensus model handling minority opinions and noncooperative behaviors in large-scale group decision-making under double hierarchy linguistic preference relations. IEEE Trans Cybern 51(1):283–296. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2020.2985069

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gou XJ, Xu ZS (2021) Managing noncooperative behaviors in large-scale group decision-making with linguistic preference orderings: The application in Internet venture capital. Inf Fusion 69:142–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2020.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jing FY, Chao XR (2021) Fairness concern: An equilibrium mechanism for consensus-reaching game in group decision-making. Inf Fusion 72:147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2021.02.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Koopman J, Lin SH, Lennard AC, Matta FK, Johnson RE (2020) My coworkers are treated more fairly than me! A self-regulatory perspective on justice social comparisons. Acad Manage J 63(3):857–880. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Laurita B, Castelli G, Resta C, Bresci E (2021) Stakeholder-based water allocation modelling and ecosystem services trade-off analysis: The case of El Carracillo region (Spain). Hydrol Sci J 66(5):777–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2021.1895439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee MK (2018) Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data Soc 5(1):2053951718756684. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718756684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee C, Ha BC (2021) Interactional justice, informational quality, and sustainable supply chain management: A comparison of domestic and multinational pharmaceutical companies. Sustain 13(2):998. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Liang W, Goh M, Wang YM (2020) Multi-attribute group decision making method based on prospect theory under hesitant probabilistic fuzzy environment. Comput Ind Eng 149:106804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lieber EMJ, Skimmyhorn W (2018) Peer effects in financial decision-making. J Public Econ 163:37–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu F, Zhang JW, Luo ZH (2021) Group decision support model based on sequential additive complementary pairwise comparisons. Appl Intell 51:7122–7138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02248-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Liu PD, Shen MJ, Teng F, Zhu BY, Rong LL, Geng YS (2021) Double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic entropy-based TODIM approach using evidential theory. Inf Sci. 547:223–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2020.07.062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Liu X, Xu ZS, Gou XJ, Xiao JL, Zhao YC (2023) A decision-making model for efficient fair electricity rationing under major power outrage emergencies. Int J Comput Commun Control 18(5):5554. https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2023.5.5554

  29. Liu X, Xu YJ, Gong ZW, Herrera F (2022) Democratic consensus reaching process for multi-person multi-criteria large scale decision making considering participants’ individual attributes and concerns. Inf Fusion 77:220–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2021.07.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Li XM, Xu LD (2020) A review of Internet of Things—resource allocation. IEEE Internet Things J 8(11):8657–8666. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2020.3035542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Matta FK, Van Dyne L (2020) Understanding the disparate behavioral consequences of LMX differentiation: The role of social comparison emotions. Acad Manage Rev 45(1):154–180. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Matteson ML, Ming Y, Silva DE (2021) The relationship between work conditions and perception of organizational justice among library employees. Libr Inf Sci Res 43(2):101093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pota M, Minutolo A, Damiano E, De Pietro G, Esposito M (2022) Betting on yourself: a decision model for Human Resource Allocation enriched with self-assessment of soft skills and preferences. IEEE Access 10:26859–26875. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3157640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pourrezaie-Khaligh P, Bozorgi-Amiri A, Yousefi-Babadi A, Moon I (2022) Fix-and-optimize approach for a healthcare facility location/network design problem considering equity and accessibility: a case study. Appl Math Model 102:243–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2021.09.022

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Roets A, Bostyn DH, De Keersmaecker J, Haesevoets T, Van Assche J, Van Hiel A (2020) Utilitarianism in minimal-group decision making is less common than equality-based morality, mostly harm-oriented, and rarely impartial. Sci Rep 10(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70199-4

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  36. Roy SK, Lassar WM, Shekhar V (2016) Convenience and satisfaction: mediation of fairness and quality. Serv Ind J 36(5–6):239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2016.1186657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Seiti H, Hafezalkotob A, Martinez L (2019) R-numbers, a new risk modeling associated with fuzzy numbers and its application to decision making. Inf Sci 483:206–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.01.006

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Sherf EN, Venkataramani V (2016) Friend or foe? The impact of relational ties with comparison others on outcome fairness and satisfaction judgments. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 128:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tang M, Liao HC (2021) Failure mode and effect analysis considering the fairness-oriented consensus of a large group with core-periphery structure. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 215:107821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5(4):297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Yamazaki Y, Yoon J (2016) A cross-national study of fairness in Asia: How perception of a lack-of-group bias and transparency in the performance evaluation system relate to job satisfaction. Hum Resour Manage 55(6):1059–1077. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang XD, Gou XJ, Xu ZS. (2022) A continuous interval-valued double hierarchy linguistic GLDS method and its application in performance evaluation of bus companies. Appl Intell 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02581-2

  43. Yang Q, Meng X, Zhao H, Cao CJ, Liu Y, Huisingh D (2021) Sustainable operations-oriented painting process optimisation in automobile maintenance service. J Clean Prod 324:129191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yeon MS, Lee YK, Pham DL, Kim KP (2022) Experimental Verification on Human-Centric Network-Based Resource Allocation Approaches for Process-Aware Information Systems. IEEE Access 10:23342–23354. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3152778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Young T, Hazarika D, Poria S, Cambria E (2018) Recent trends in deep learning based natural language processing. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 13(3):55–75. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCI.2018.2840738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Yu DJ, Li DF, Merigo JM, Fang LC (2016) Mapping development of linguistic decision making studies. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 30(5):2727–2736. https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-152026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Yu DJ, Li DF, Merigo JM (2016) Dual hesitant fuzzy group decision making method and its application to supplier selection. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 7(5):819–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-015-0400-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zadeh LA (2011) A note on Z-numbers. Inf Sci 181(14):2923–2932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.02.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Zhou YY, Zheng CL, Zhou LG, Chen HY (2023) Selection of a solar water heater for large-scale group decision making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations based on the best-worst method. Appl Intell 53(4):4462–4482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-03688-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Zhang XM, Meng FY (2022) A large-scale group decision making method to select the ideal mobile health application for the hospital. Appl Intell 52(14):15844–15864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-03273-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Zhao L, Ye JH, Wu XX, Hu FP (2018) The Influence of the Tri-reference Points on Fairness and Satisfaction Perception. Front Psychol 9:193. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00193

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhao M, Wang YJ, Meng XY, Gou XJ (2023) Selection strategy of uniform expert evaluation scale in group decision making. J Oper Res Soc. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2023.2237993

  53. Zhao WD, Pu S, Jiang DN (2020) A human resource allocation method for business processes using team faultlines. Appl Intell 50(9):2887–2900

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (72071135, 72271173), the Humanities and Social Sciences Fund of the Ministry of Education (21YJC630030) and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2023T160459, 2020M680151).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610064, China

    Xing Liu, Xunjie Gou & Zeshui Xu

Authors
  1. Xing Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xunjie Gou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zeshui Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zeshui Xu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, X., Gou, X. & Xu, Z. Fair-satisfied-based group decision making with prospect theory under DHLTS: The application in enterprise human resource allocation. Appl Intell 54, 2783–2797 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-023-05222-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-023-05222-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation