IMPROVING COMMITMENT TO AGREEMENTS: THE ROLE OF GROUP DECISION-MAKING METHODS IN THE PERCEPTION OF SENSE OF JUSTICE AND SATISFACTION AS COMMITMENT PREDICTORS

Ziotti, Vanessa Coimbra; Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua

doi:10.1590/0101-7438.2020.040.00230300

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ARTICLES • Pesqui. Oper. 40 • 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-7438.2020.040.00230300 copy

IMPROVING COMMITMENT TO AGREEMENTS: THE ROLE OF GROUP DECISION-MAKING METHODS IN THE PERCEPTION OF SENSE OF JUSTICE AND SATISFACTION AS COMMITMENT PREDICTORS

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to evaluate the chances of commitment in group decision making process, modeled by a multicriteria method based on game theory and its evaluation in relation to the satisfaction and sense of justice of the players. We hypothesized that mathematical methods may favor group decision-making, reflecting higher levels of sense of justice and satisfaction and consequently greater chances of commitment to the agreements made. By means of 75 simulations, with five volunteers each, the hypotheses of this study were confirmed, which include the affirmation that the commitment in group decision making can be increased by the use of a method to support group decision making and, consequently, that the sense of justice and satisfaction will be greater when agreements are supported by some sort of mathematical method.

Keywords:
satisfaction; justice sense; game theory

Scenario I	Scenario II	Scenario III	Scenario IV	Scenario V
20	17	7	13	18

Scenario I		Scenario II		Scenario III		Scenario IV		Scenario V
S	SJ	S	SJ	S	SJ	S	SJ	S	SJ
4.83	4.87	4.26	4.49	4.56	4.72	3.77	3.86	3.63	3.69

Index	Index = 0		Index < 0		Index > 0		No consensus in negotiation
Negotiations	31		27		8		9
Negotiations	20	11	13	14	4	4	N/A	9
Commitment	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No

Index = 0		Index < 0		Index > 0		No consensus in negotiation
S	SJ	S	SJ	S	SJ	S	SJ
4.52	4.64	4.17	4.16	4.25	4.55	3.53	3.69

Alternatives	Criteria
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
	Hotel evaluation	Traveling duration	Number of nights	Exchange rate	Shopping	Cultural attractions	Nature	Infrastructure
Destination A	2,5	8 h	4 days	R$ 0,9	5	3	7	8
Destination B	3,5	2,5 h	6 days	R$ 3,1	9	7	3	6
Destination C	3	4 h	7 days	R$ 4,7	4	5	9	7,5
Destination D	5	13 h	5 days	R$ 3,3	3	9	6	7
Destination E	4	16 h	8 days	R$ 1,1	6	8	5	5

Alternatives	Criterion
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
	Distance (km)	Courseware	Class size	Class hours	Infrastructure	School reputation	Extra activities	Course quality
School A	14 km	R$ 450	15	2 h	10	6	4	9
School B	7 km	R$ 650	12	3 h	9	8	5	8
School C	16 km	R$ 590	4	2,5 h	8	7	9	7
School D	6,5 km	R$ 570	8	6 h	5	8	6	8
School E	10 km	R$ 300	18	4 h	7	9	8	5

Alternatives	Criterion
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
	Professional qualification	Years of company	Years in the area	Leadership positions	Ethic	Adaptation to change	Commitment	Professional
Candidate A	8 years	7 years	7 years	3 roles	10	4	6	9
Candidate B	7 years	4 years	10 years	3 roles	9	9	4	8
Candidate C	6 years	6 years	15 years	4 roles	8	7	7	4
Candidate D	5 years	8 years	12 years	7 roles	7	8	8	4
Candidate E	4 years	10 years	9 years	6 roles	5	7	10	7

Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Operacional Rua Mayrink Veiga, 32 - sala 601 - Centro, 20090-050 Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil, Tel.: +55 21 2263-0499, Fax: +55 21 2263-0501 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: sobrapo@sobrapo.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author