How Employment Offering Enhances Employees’ Intentions to Recommend the Organization as an Employer? The Role of Social Identity and Communications Distinctiveness
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
Despite the interest for employer branding among practitioners, academic research on the topic is still limited. The purpose of the present research was to study the influence of the employment offering diffused by an organization through its communications on its employees’ intentions to recommend the organization. More precisely, the present study aimed at examining the effect of the interaction between employment offering and communications distinctiveness on employees’ recommendation intentions and the mediating role of social identity, i.e. organizational identification and pride, in this relationship. One-hundred eighty-seven employees of a large international group of the bank industry responded to the questionnaire. Results indicated that, when the employment offering depicts favorable employment conditions and these communications are perceived as distinct from other organizations’ communications, employees are more proud of their organization and consequently more willing to recommend it as an employer. By contrast, organizational identification did not mediate the influence of the interaction of employment offering by communications distinctiveness on recommendation intentions. Implications of these findings are discussed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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