MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Strategic Human Resources Management Practices in the Private Security Industry: Workforce Retention and Professional Development A Case Study of Securitas Canada

2025· article· en· W4412809052 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTexila international journal of academic research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary and Defense Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceBusinessHuman resource managementProfessional developmentWorkforce developmentHuman resourcesManagementPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study researches strategic human resources management (SHRM) practices in Canada's private security industry.It examines the role SHRM plays in workforce retention and staff professional development programs at Securitas Canada.Furthermore, the study investigates how Securitas applied SHRM principles to reduce its high staff turnover rate, and enhance the skill development of its workforce in a labor-intensive and high-risk industry.Using a mixed method of semi-structured approach, which comprises interviews with stakeholders, surveys with 300 employees, and document analysis, the study provides a robust insight into the company's HR strategies.The findings show that competitive compensation packages, targeted recognition programs, and sound professional development initiative have pushed its turnover rate far below the industry average.In addition, technology-driven training and leadership programs put in place by the company has strengthened the HR practices of the organization.The study expands SHRM literature by utilizing the High-Performance Work Systems (HPWS) and Ability Motivation Opportunity (AMO) frameworks to a largely under-researched sector.The study would guide private security firms in improving workforce stability and career growth in high-risk operational occupation and environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTexila international journal of academic researchSame topicMilitary and Defense StudiesFrench-language works237,207