Understanding employees’ perceptions in team collaboration may help managers select and develop effective teamwork and efficient job completion. Numerous criteria, including qualitative and quantitative, and their importance weights must be considered in evaluating individual diversity perception; therefore, evaluating individual diversity perception is a fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem. The purpose of this paper is to use a fuzzy MCDM method to evaluate the personal perception of working in a diverse workgroup. A ranking method using the mean of relative values is proposed to rank the final fuzzy values to complete the model. Formulas of the ranking procedure are derived to help execute the decision-making procedure and a numerical comparison is conducted to demonstrate the advantage of the proposed ranking method. In addition, a survey about personal diversity perception and willingness to work verifies the feasibility and validity of the proposed mean of relative values based fuzzy MCDM method. The results indicate that decision-makers prefer to work in a different countries-same working field group. More experienced decision-makers, unlike students, prefer to work in the same working sector group.
ChuaR.Y., RothY. and LemoineJ.F., The impact of culture oncreativity: How cultural tightness and cultural distance affectglobal innovation crowdsourcing work, Administrative ScienceQuarterly60(2) (2015), 189–227.
2.
ChristianJ., PorterL.W. and MoffittG., Workplace diversity andgroup relations: An overview, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations9(4) (2006), 459–466.
3.
BenrazaviS. R. and SilongA.D., Employees’ job satisfaction and itsinfluence on willingness to work in teams, Journal ofManagement Policy and Practice14(1) (2013), 127–140.
4.
AlexandraV., EhrhartK.H. and RandelA.E., Cultural intelligence,perceived inclusion, and cultural diversity in workgroups, Personality and Individual Differences168 (2021), 110285.
5.
LeeJ., KimS. and KimY., Diversity climate on turnover intentions: a sequential mediating effect of personal diversity value and affective commitment, Personnel Review (2020). Advance online publication.
6.
ZadehL.A., Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems and decision processes, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (1) (1973), 28–44.
7.
RobersonQ., HolmesO.IV and PerryJ.L., Transforming research ondiversity and firm performance: A dynamic capabilities perspective, Academy of Management Annals11(1) (2017), 189–216.
8.
KingE.B., HeblM.R. and BealD.J., Conflict and cooperation indiverse workgroups, Journal of Social Issues65(2) (2009), 261–285.
9.
AyubN. and JehnK.A., Exploring diversity effects: nationalitycomposition and nationality context in workgroups, EuropeanJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology27(5) (2018), 616–628.
10.
PelledL.H., Demographic diversity, conflict, and work groupoutcomes: An intervening process theory, Organization Science7(6) (1996), 615–631.
11.
HofstedeG., Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations, (2001). Sage Publications.
12.
HarrisonD.A., PriceK.H., GavinJ.H. and FloreyA.T., Time, teams,and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-leveldiversity on group functioning, Academy of Management Journal45(5) (2002), 1029–1045.
13.
BarrickM.R. and MountM.K., The big five personality dimensions andjob performance: a meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology44(1) (1991), 1–26.
14.
McCraeR.R. and JohnO.P., An introduction to the five-factor modeland its applications, Journal of Personality60(2) (1992), 175–215.
15.
RothmannS. and CoetzerE.P., The big five personality dimensionsand job performance, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology29(1) (2003), 68–74.
16.
HarrisonD.A., NewmanD.A. and RothP.L., How important are jobattitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioraloutcomes and time sequences, Academy of Management Journal49(2) (2006), 305–325.
17.
LourençoP.R., DimasI.D. and RebeloT., Effective workgroups:The role of diversity and culture,í, a del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones30(3) (2014), 123–132.
18.
AllanB.A., DuffyR.D. and CollissonB., Task significance andperformance: Meaningfulness as a mediator, Journal of CareerAssessment26(1) (2018), 172–182.
19.
SjöbergL., Risk and willingness to work, InternationalJournal of Risk Assessment and Management7(2) (2007), 224–236.
20.
TschannenD., The effect of individual characteristics onperceptions of collaboration in the work environment, MedsurgNursing13(5) (2004), 312–318. PMID: 15587130.
21.
LovingV.A., Collaborative interdepartmental teams: benefits,challenges, alternatives, and the ingredients for team success, Clinical Imaging69 (2020), 301–304.
22.
MousaM., MassoudH.K. and AyoubiR.M., Gender, diversity managementperceptions, workplace happiness and organisational citizenshipbehaviour, Employee Relations42(6) (2020), 1249–1269.
23.
RablT., del Carmen TrianaM., ByunS.Y. and BoschL., Diversitymanagement efforts as an ethical responsibility: How employees’perceptions of an organizational integration and learning approachto diversity affect employee behavior, Journal of BusinessEthics161(3) (2020), 531–550.
24.
KahramanC., OnarS.C. and OztaysiB., Fuzzy multicriteriadecision-making: a literature review, International Journal ofComputational Intelligence Systems8(4) (2015), 637–666.
25.
MohamedN.H., LamsaliH. and SathyamoorthyD., Multi-CriteriaDecision Making (MCDM) for technical evaluation of tenderers: Areview of methods employed, Defence S&T Technical Bulletin8(1) (2015), 90–102.
26.
ZhangZ., GaoY. and LiZ., Consensus reaching for social networkgroup decision making by considering leadership and boundedconfidence, Knowledge-Based Systems204 (2020), 106240.
27.
ZhangK., ZhanJ. and WuW.Z., On multi-criteria decision-making method based on a fuzzy rough set model with fuzzy α-neighborhoods, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems (2020), early access, June 11, 2020.
28.
YeJ., ZhanJ. and XuZ., A novel decision-making approach based onthree-way decisions in fuzzy information systems, InformationSciences541 (2020), 362–390.
29.
ZhanJ., JiangH. and YaoY., Three-way multi-attribute decision-making based on outranking relations, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems (2020), early access, Jul. 7, 2020.
30.
YeJ., ZhanJ., DingW. and FujitaH., A novel fuzzy rough set modelwith fuzzy neighborhood operators, Information Sciences544 (2021), 266–297.
31.
WangJ., MaX., XuZ. and ZhanJ., Three-way multi-attributedecision making under hesitant fuzzy environments, InformationSciences552 (2021), 328–351.
32.
ManoharanT.R., MuralidharanC. and DeshmukhS.G., An integratedfuzzy multi-attribute decision-making model for employees’performance appraisal, The International Journal of HumanResource Management22(03) (2011), 722–745.
33.
TurskisZ., KeršulienėV. and VinogradovaI., A new fuzzyhybrid multicriteria decision-making approach to solve personnelassessment problems. Case study: director selection for estates andeconomy office, Economic Computation & Economic CyberneticsStudies & Research51(3) (2017), 211–229.
34.
KazancogluY. and Ozkan-OzenY.D., Analyzing Workforce 4.0 inthe Fourth Industrial Revolution and proposinga road map from operations management perspective with fuzzyDEMATEL, Journal of Enterprise Information Management31(6) (2018), 891–907.
35.
ZhangZ., YuW., MartínezL. and GaoY., Managing multigranularunbalanced hesitant fuzzy linguistic information in multiattributelarge-scale group decision making: A linguistic distribution-basedapproach, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems28(11) (2019), 2875–2889.
36.
ZhangZ., GaoJ., GaoY. and YuW., Two-sided matching decisionmaking with multi-granular hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets andincomplete criteria weight information, Expert Systems withApplications168 (2021), 114311.
37.
YagerR. R., Ranking fuzzy subsets over the unit interval, In 1978 IEEE conference on decision and control including the 17th symposium on adaptive processes, IEEE (1979), 1435–1437.
38.
YagerR.R., A procedure for ordering fuzzy subsets of the unitinterval, Information Sciences24(2) (1981), 143–161.
39.
ChenS.H., Ranking fuzzy numbers with maximizing and minimizing set, Fuzzy Sets and Systems17(2) (1985), 113–129.
40.
WuP., ZhouL., ChenH. and ZhouH., An improved fuzzy risk analysisby using a new similarity measure with center of gravity and area oftrapezoidal fuzzy numbers, Soft Computing24(6) (2020), 3923–3936.
41.
ChuT. C and NguyenH.T., Ranking alternatives with relativemaximizing and minimizing sets in a fuzzy MCDM model, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems21(4) (2019), 1170–1186.
42.
KaufmanA. and GuptaM.M., Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic (1991). New York, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
43.
DuboisD. and PradeH., Operations on fuzzy numbers, International Journal of Systems Science9(6) (1978), 613–626.
44.
Van LaarhovenP.J. and PedryczW., A fuzzy extension of Saaty’spriority theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems11(1–3) (1983), 229–241.
45.
ZadehL.., Fuzzy sets, Information and Control8(3) (1965), 338–353.
46.
ChuT.C. and LeH.T., An extension to fuzzy ELECTRE, SoftComputing24 (2020), 7541–7555.
47.
VeltenL. and LashleyC., The meaning of cultural diversity amongstaff as it pertains to employee motivation, Research inHospitality Management7(2) (2018), 105–113.
48.
BrodbeckF.C., KerschreiterR., MojzischA. and Schulz-HardtS., Group decision making under conditions of distributed knowledge: Theinformation asymmetries model, Academy of Management Review32(2) (2007), 459–479.
49.
BooneC. and HendriksW., Top management team diversity and firmperformance: Moderators of functional-background andlocus-of-control diversity, Management Science55(2) (2009), 165–180.
