Employee-Selection Practices and Public Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recruitment and selection of employees is an important human resource component of the management of intramural recreation departments across North America. While much is written about the mechanics of the hiring process, little attention has been paid to the public relations aspects of this activity. As Currie (1997) suggests, the employee-selection process has the potential to create favorable impressions of an organization on job applicants. This article explores a number of activities that are usually part of hiring of new employees with a view to determining the negative or positive outcomes from a public relations standpoint. The “recruitment phase” of the process is extremely important when leaving applicants with a favorable impression of an organization. Keep in mind that numerous individuals who do not ultimately secure a position, are subject to forming impressions by being exposed to advertisements, job descriptions, Websites and various other forms of communication. The second important phase of hiring that has potential for the creation of impressions is the “interview process.” While the interview is the most widely employed yet least understood, techniques used in the hiring process (Boucher, 1991), there is no question that indelible impressions are formed during this phase. Both employer and candidates for positions invariably “exchange impressions” during an interview to the extent that initial (and in some cases lasting) attitudes are formed. It is also apparent from the literature that “extra-viewing” techniques such as panel interviews, drug testing, and personality tests, often are viewed as demeaning by applicants. The last, but certainly no less important, area of concern is the “post-selection” activities. Several authors cite a number of practices that treat unsuccessful candidates very disrespectfully. A more enlightened approach would be to treat unsuccessful candidates as potential hires in subsequent job searches. Even if these individuals never apply for positions in the future, the objective should be to have them treated with the utmost attention to human dignity. As such, countless individuals who apply for positions within organizations will form positive impressions of that organization consistent with comprehensive public relations policies. The hiring process should be considered as just one of the efforts of creating, communicating, enhancing, and maintaining a corporate image that is critical to an organization's success (Brendsel, 1993).
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".