Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to understand if and how employer branding influences employees? work behaviours and enhances employees? ability to contribute to organizational productivity, effectiveness, and competitiveness, one needs to examine its functionality and capacities beyond that of employee attraction and retention to that of employee development, engagement, and performance. This research aims to do that by answering the following questions:1. What are the factors present in the content and delivery of employer brand promises and how might they influence employee performance?2. What influence does employees? perceived level of employer brand promise fulfilment by their organization have on their level of organizational citizenship and task performances?A mix method case study was conducted on one of Canada?s best-of-the-best employers. In total, 19 managers were interviewed and 316 employees were surveyed.Five themes emerged to reflect the employer brand promise content factors that could influence performance. They are the factors of personal sustainability, personal connectedness and belonging, opportunities and growth, personal stake and influence, as well as significance and esteem. Three themes emerged to reflect the employment benefit materialization factors. They are brand championship, branding control, and stakeholder selection and interaction. Quantitative results suggest that as a whole, statistically significant, positive, and generally weak to moderate influence exists between employees? perceived level of employer brand promise fulfillment and their organizational citizenship performance. The influence on task performance is much weaker. However, there is stronger indication that employees? perceived fulfillment of employer brand promises positively influences their perception of 1) their employment experience as being desirable and distinctive, 2) their organization as being a great place to work, 3) their happiness to spend the rest of their career at the organization, and 4) their lack of frequency in thinking of leaving the organization, and these positive perceptions, in turn, further influence employees? organizational citizenship and task performances.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".