Determinants that influence Employee Development and Performance in Semi Governmental Organizations in the UAE
For the introduction:
Introduction:
About Employee Development and Performance in Semi Governmental Organizations in the UAE
Therefore, the objectives of this research are:
- To introduce the push and pull framework of employee development and performance
- 2- Propose an Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) model of the suggested framework.
Literature review ( mostly UAE context)
Section 1 – employee development and performance
Section 2 – Push and pull model of employee development and performance
- education
- training
- skills
- experience
- motivation
- knowledge
Section 3 – Overview of AHP ( same as sample paraphrase carefully )
Section 4 AHP Model and Analysis ( same as sample paeaphrase carefully)
Section 4.1 analysis – (paraphrase carefully )
Section 5 – discussion based on the analysis I provided and following the sample
Section 5.1 implications paraphrase taking into consideration my topic and my analysis
Section 5.2 paraphrase taking into consideration my topic and my findings
KINDLY USE RELEVANT REFRENCES THAT ARE ABOUT MY TOPIC
Abstract
Purpose: A push-pull factors theory of determinants that influence of employee development and performance is developed in order to identify and prioritize the factors influencing Emirati (UAE) employees. The Proposed theory is implemented in a semi governmental sector.
Methodology: The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model was developed with 5 criteria and 14 sub-criteria, based upon the findings of previous studies. Data were collected using a questionnaire survey given to 20 Human resources employees within a semi governmental organization in the UAE. The respondents were selected on the basis of their qualification backgrounds. The data collected were interpreted and a priority vector was assigned to the criteria and sub-criteria.
Findings: A well-researched methodology was used for the synthesis of priorities and the measurement of consistencies. The findings show that education, skills and training are the three main criteria considered to be the most important factors that influence the growth and success of Emirati women entrepreneurs. (change the highlighted to match my topic )
Research implications: The model can be utilized by authors for future academic and managerial studies. The findings interpreted can help policy makers and related associations develop various policies based on the specific factors found to empower Emirati women entrepreneurs in an effective manner. This process will increase the participation of Emirati women in the entrepreneurial field. (change the highlighted to match my topic )
Originality: This study is the first of its kind to present an AHP model that contains most dimensions influencing the factors that develop the performance and growth of Emirati in the semi governmental sector and prioritizes the dimensions based on their importance.
Limitations & Future Research: The research model had limited dimensions and the findings cannot be generalized. Hence, it would be valuable to conduct future study in other countries and other sectors to generalize the findings. Including other factors can enhance the model and alternatives could be based on types of sectors.
Key words: AHP, Employee development, performance management , United Arab Emirates.
Figure 1
Figure 1. Outline of AHP method applied
Figure 2
Table 1: Push and pull – this is the format I need for my topic (determinants that influence of employee development and performance ) kindly follow the below format change the content and the references)
| Criteria | Sub Criteria | Reference |
| Education (ED) | · 1. Entrepreneurs engaged in formal education (Up to graduation) are more likely to succeed in entrepreneurship (ED1, ED2).
· 2. Business school education (Masters) (ED3). · 3. Entrepreneurship education should be embedded at early stage (ED4). |
Franke and Luthje (2004), Turker and Selcuk (2009), Ahmed. et al, (2002); Kargwell & Inguva, (2012) |
| Training (TR) | 1. Training should be organized as close to the context of the business operations as possible (TR1).
2. Vocational training act as a stepping stone to be a potential entrepreneur (TR2). |
Dhiliwayo (2008), Kargwell & Inguva (2012) |
| Skills (SK) | 1. Technical skills, business skill and managerial skill helps the individual to come up with problem solving tactics to inspire success (SK1, SK2, and SK3).
2. Leadership, communication and decision making skill of an entrepreneur has a great influence on business objectives, strategies and entrepreneurial decision (SK4, SK5, SK6). |
Choo and Wong (2009), Randeree and Chaudhry (2012), Suwaidi (2012), Singh and De Noble (2003). |
| Experience (EX) | 1. Family business exposure can facilitate the attainment of entrepreneurial skills and knowledge (EX1)
2. Professional experience can influence intentions and attitudes and finally increase the chances of entrepreneurial success (EX2). |
Carr and Sequeira (2007), Shepherd & DeTienne (2005), Kargwell et al (2012) |
| Knowledge (KN) | 1. Information on market trends is integral to the success of the business (KN1).
2. Entrepreneur should be well aware of their competitors marketing strategy, products, pricing strategy and the services provided to their customers (KN2).
|
Shepherd and DeTienne (2005), Kargwell & Inguva (2012), Ahl (2006) |
Table 2: Fundamental scale for pair wise comparison
| Intensity | Definition | Explanation |
| 1 | Equal importance | Two activities contribute equally to the objective |
| 3 | Moderate importance | Experience and judgment slightly favor one activity over another |
| 5 | Strong importance | Experience and judgment strongly favor one activity over another |
| 7 | Very strong or demonstrated importance | An activity is favored very strongly over another; its dominance demonstrated in practice |
| 9 | Extreme importance | The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation |
| 2,4,6,8 | For compromise between the above values | Sometimes one needs to interpolate a compromise judgment numerically because there is no good word to describe it |
Table 3: Random Index
| n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| RI | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.58 | 0.90 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.45 | 1.48 |
Where: n is number of factors
Table 4 : Geometric Means of Pair-Wise comparison of main criteria
| Criteria | Education | Training | Skills | Experience | Knowledge | Priority vector |
| Education | 1.00 | 2 | 2 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 0.32 |
| Training | 0.50 | 1.00 | 1.50 | 2.50 | 3.00 | 0.26 |
| Skills | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.14 |
| Experience | 0.48 | 0.40 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2 | 0.15 |
| Knowledge | 0.42 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.14 |
CR Value: 0.10=0.10 (consistent)
Table 5: Pair wise comparison of Education sub criteria
| Education | Primary | Secondary | Bachelors | Masters | Priority Vector |
| Primary | 1.00 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 0.52 |
| Secondary | 0.33 | 1.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 0.27 |
| Bachelors | 0.25 | 0.33 | 1.00 | 3.00 | 0.14 |
| Masters | 0.20 | 0.25 | 0.33 | 1.00 | 0.07 |
CR Value: 0.06<0.10 (consistent)
Table 6: Pair wise comparison of Training sub criteria
| Training | Training Courses | Vocational Training | Priority Vector |
| Training Courses | 1.00 | 6.2 | 0.86 |
| Vocational Training | 0.16 | 1.00 | 0.14 |
CR Value: 0< 0.10 (consistent)
Table 7: Pair wise comparison of Skills sub criteria
| Skills | Management | Technical | Communication | Decision Making | Priority Vector |
| Management | 1.00 | 3 | 3.2 | 4.1 | 0.18 |
| Technical | 0.33 | 1.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 | 0.06 |
| Communication | 0.31 | 0.33 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 0.18 |
| Decision Making | 0.24 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.23 |
CR Value: 0.02 < 0.10 (consistent)
Table 8: Pair wise comparison of experiences sub criteria
| Experience | Relevant | Not relevant | Priority Vector |
| Relevant | 1.00 | 4.8 | 0.83 |
| Not Relevant | 0.21 | 1.00 | 0.17 |
CR Value: 0.00 < 0.10 (consistent)
Table 9: Pair wise comparison of knowledge sub criteria
| Knowledge | Financials | Competitors | Priority Vector |
| Financials | 1.00 | 6.2 | 0.86 |
| Competitors | 0.16 | 1.00 | 0.14 |
CR Value: 0.00 < 0.10 (consistent)
Table 10: Ranking of priorities for criteria and sub criteria of Respondents
| Criteria | Priority | Criteria Ranking | Sub Criteria | Priority | Sub criteria ranks | Total Priority | Total sub criteria ranking |
| Education | 0.303 | 1 | Primary | 0.05 | 3 | 0.01 | 8 |
| Secondary | 0.18 | 2 | 0.03 | 6 | |||
| Bachelors | 0.39 | 1 | 0.07 | 3 | |||
| Masters | 0.39 | 1 | 0.07 | 3 | |||
| Training | 0.134 | 4 | Training courses | 0.50 | 1 | 0.08 | 2 |
| Vocational Training | 0.50 | 1 | 0.08 | 2 | |||
| Skills | 0.196 | 2 | Management | 0.18 | 3 | 0.03 | 6 |
| Technical | 0.06 | 5 | 0.01 | 8 | |||
| Communication | 0.18 | 3 | 0.03 | 6 | |||
| Decision making | 0.23 | 1 | 0.04 | 5 | |||
| Experience | 0.184 | 3 | Relevant Exp | 0.33 | 2 | 0.06 | 4 |
| Not Relevant Exp | 0.67 | 1 | 0.11 | 1 | |||
| Knowledge | 0.082 | 6 | Financials | 0.50 | 1 | 0.08 | 2 |
| Competitors | 0.50 | 1 | 0.08 | 2 |
