Impact of Personal Recruitment on Organisational Development: A Survey of Selected Nigerian Workplace
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the processes through which personnel are recruited into organisation and the impacts of the personnel recruitment on the organisational development. Six research questions and two hypotheses were postulated to find solutions to the problems of the study. One hundred and fifty senior personnel formed the sample size from six organisations. A self-designed instrument labeled Personnel Recruitment Process Impact Questionnaire (PEREPRIQ) containing five sections was used in the collection of data. The findings of the study revealed certain recruitment procedures adopted in organisations. It also revealed that the recruitment procedures used in the organisation influence personnel behaviour and performance to a large extent. It further established those factors militating against recruitment processes in organisations as well as its consequences on the personnel and organisational development. Based on the findings, the following recommendations were proffered that recruitment processes and procedures must be developed which all applicants must pass through; that all applicants must all be treated equally, and that what constitute qualification and merit must be well spelt out to include applicant ability to “deliver” and not just ‘paper’ qualification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it