Effects of employer management on employee recruitment, satisfaction, engagement, and retention on large US dairy farms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lack of employee engagement and satisfaction and high turnover rate of employees are major problems on some US dairy farms. Farm adoption of human resource management (HRM) practices varies widely. Using feedback from 168 employees from 12 large dairy farms, our objectives were to understand employee perceptions of HRM strengths and weaknesses and their influence on (1) employee satisfaction, (2) retention of employees, (3) willingness of employees to recommend the farm as a place to work, and (4) level of employee engagement on the farm. Employees who rated their employers higher for almost any management-related question (MRQ) were more satisfied in their jobs and more likely to recommend their place of work to other potential employees. Employees reported a higher intention to stay on the farm when employers scored higher on MRQs connected to employer-employee relationships. Employees who rated "Relationships" (a component consisting of 5 MRQs) higher were more likely to have a higher rate of satisfaction, were more likely to intend to stay at their job, and were more likely to recommend their place of work to others. No single management question was positively related to employee engagement (as measured by employees having and sharing ideas to improve the business); however, ethnicity, gender, job role, duration of employment, and employee's self-appraisal of their desire to learn and commitment to the farm were each associated with engagement. Female employees were less likely to provide ideas to their employers (compared with male employees), as were Spanish-speaking employees (compared with English-speaking employees). Differences between Spanish- and English-speaking employees were also present in measures such as intention to stay (shorter) and willingness to recommend the farm as a place to work (higher). Employees who rated themselves higher on their desire to learn and commitment to the farm were more likely to provide ideas to their employers, as were longer-term employees. In conclusion, we inferred that dairy farm management can improve employee retention and engagement through improved use of HRM practices.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".