MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168092481 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v6n1p87

Relationship between Strategic Recruitment and Employee Retention in Commercial Banks in Kenya

2014· article· en· W2168092481 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
George Mucai Mbugua, Esther Waiganjo, Agnes Njeru

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLeadership and Management in Organizations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmployee retentionDescriptive statisticsIncentiveMarketingRanking (information retrieval)BusinessTest (biology)Qualitative propertyThe InternetDescriptive researchEconomicsStatisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between strategic employee recruitment practices and employee retention in commercial banks in Kenya. A survey design was used to gather the information needed to achieve the objectives. Qualitative and quantitative techniques were used. The study was carried out in commercial banks in Kenya which had operating Licenses from the Central bank of Kenya. Questionnaires were used to collect the data. The data was analysed using descriptive statistics mainly percentages and frequency distribution. Correlation and regression analysis were used to test the relationship between the variables. The study established that the organizations practiced strategic recruitment such as the use of associations, psychometric tests, websites, targeting specific professionals, employing head hunting strategies, offer incentives, ranking of potential candidates and utilization of internet and other technologies which influenced the employee recruitment. The study concluded that the strategic employee recruitment influenced the employee retention. The study recommended that the management of all commercial banks should embrace strategic recruitment with the view of retaining their talents and thereby cutting the cost of recruitment and the loss of talents which are valuable to the organizations’ competitiveness.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business AdministrationSame topicLeadership and Management in OrganizationsFrench-language works237,207