Week 2 Discussion 1:

To prepare for this Discussion:

Please select the links below to open and view this week's lecture:

· Reading – Chapters 2 and 3 of The Performance Consultant’s Field book “See attachment”

· Lidinska, L., & Jablonsky, J. (2018). AHP model for performance evaluation of employees in a Czech management consulting company. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 26(1), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-017-0486-7

· Lu, X., & Guy, M. E. (2019). Emotional labor, performance goal orientation, and burnout from the perspective of conservation of resources: A United States/China Comparison. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(3), 685–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1507916

Assignment – Cohesive response

The AHP Model

Using the articles; AHP model for performance evaluation of employees in a Czech management consulting company by Lidinska & Jablonsky (2018) and Emotional labor, performance goal orientation, and burnout from the perspective of conservation of resources: A United States/China Comparison by Lu & Guy (2019), please review the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) that is outlined for performance consulting.

· Develop a summary on your agreement or disagreement with the AHP model

· Support your viewpoints by addressing the key elements of application, in which you agree or disagree within the AHP model for performance evaluation of employees

· Discuss the important elements of innovation, evaluation, and a general decision-making approach

· Discuss how emotional dissonance, goal orientation, and burnout are critical factors to consider within the organizational culture and how you can correlate this to the AHP model

· Support your viewpoints on the critical difference between the changes in performance consulting overall from the required reading

· APA citing

· No plagiarism

· 4-5 paragraphs

pur-new-sol

Related Questions