SYNOPSIS TITLE An evaluation of Impact of Recruitment Sources, Interview and Recruiters on Recruitment and Selection Process of WI-TRIBE Pakistan.

THE SCOPE WI-TRIBE Pakistan, Head Office, MM Alam Road, Lahore. SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY The study will broaden my understanding the affect of independent variables which are Recruitment sources, Interview and Recruiters on the dependent variable which is Recruitment and Selection Process. Current study will add to existing body of knowledge by signifying the following objectives: OBJECTIVES To study the importance of recruitment & selection procedure followed in WITRIBE PAKISTAN. To study the effects of methods of recruitment & selection on recruitment & selection process. To study the recruiters affects on Recruitment and selection process.

INTRODUCTION My dissertation is about selection process that is an important part of any organization, which is considered as a necessary asset of a company. In fact, selection gives a home ground to the organization that is needed for proper functioning of the organization. It gives an organizational structure of the company. It is a methodology in which the particular organization works and how a new candidate could be recruited in such a way that he/she would be fitted for the right kind of career. The objective of selection decision is to choose the individual who can most successfully perform the job from the pool of qualified candidates. Selection process or activities typically follow a standard pattern, beginning with an initial screening interview and concluding with final employment decision. The reviews of recruitment and selection practices both identified a need for research showing business unit value/organizational impact. This is interesting given the most basic staffing assumption, one described in nearly every textbook written on the subject, is that recruiting and hiring better employees contributes to organizational effectiveness. If it does not, then why invest in staffing? However, there is actually little direct, empirical evidence testing this assumption (e.g., Ployhart, 2004; Saks, 2005; Taylor & Collins, 2000). Utility analysis may be helpful to estimate these effects, but they are only estimates that are limited to monetary outcomes and are frequently discounted by managers (Schneider, Smith, & Sipe, 2000). Practitioners and HR managers often have to go well beyond validity (and even utility/monetary estimates) to make a case that staffing ads strategic value to the firm. Likewise, from a theoretical perspective, it is discouraging there is notmore direct, empiri cal evidence linking individual differences to organizational effectiveness. There is considerable staffing research at the micro (individual) level and some staffing research at the macro (organizational) level, but each discipline rarely considers processes, constructs, and influences outside its respective level. That is, micro- and macro-level research are both pri- marily singlelevel disciplines because their independent and dependent variables are contained within the same level of analysis (Ployhart, 2004). Micro (individual)-level research examines how individual differences (knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics; KSAOs) contribute to individual performance but assumes (or only estimates how) individual differences contribute to organizational value. Micro research is usually conducted from the perspective of industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology. Macro (organizational or business unit)-level research examines how HR practices (e.g., staffing) contribute to organizational performance but assumes that these practices have an effect because of their influence on employee KSAOs. Note that in macro research, these unit-level KSAOs are referred to as human capital and rarely measured. For example, research suggests that organizations using well-developed staffing practices have better performance (Huselid, 1995), but the focus is on the practice itself and not the specific human capital affected by the practice.

Macro research is usually conducted from the perspective of strategy or strategic HR management (SHRM). If both micro and macro disciplines limited their implications to their respective levels, there would be no cause for concern. But both disciplines make inferences and assumptions that extend beyond their respective levels. This is known as a cross-level fallacy in multi-level research and occurs when researchers inappropriately generalize their within-level findings to higher or lower levels of analysis (Rousseau, 1985).

LITERATURE REVIEW RECRUITMENT Most definitions of recruitment emphasize the organizations collective efforts to identify, attract, and influence the job choices of competent applicants. Organizational leaders are painfully aware that recruiting talent is one of their most pressing problems. Tight labor markets give applicants considerable choice between employers. Some reports indicate that nearly half of all employees are at least passively looking for jobs, and a sizable minority is continually actively searching (Towers Perrin, 2006). This is such a problem that many organizations actually face a greater recruiting challenge than a selection challenge. Selection will only be effective and financially defensible if a sufficient quantity of applicants apply to the organization. Compounding this challenge is that many organizations struggle with how to attract a diverse workforce. Thus, there is growing recognition that recruitingby itself and irrespective of selectionis critical not only for sustained competitive advantage but basic organizational survival (Taylor & Collins, 2000). Reflecting this importance, there have been several excellent reviews on recruitment (Breaugh & Starke, 2000; High house & Hoffman, 2001; Rynes & Cable, 2003; Saks, 2005; Taylor & Collins, 2000). This review obviously does not provide the depth or detail of those reviews. Rather, this review selects the more recent developments with the greatest implications for organizational effectiveness. An excellent place to start the review is with the recruitment meta analysis conducted by Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, and Jones (2005). They summarized 71 studies to estimate the effect, sizes and path relationships between recruiting predictors (job/organizational attributes, recruiter characteristics, perceptions of recruitment process, perceived fit, perceived alternatives, hiring expectancies) and applicant attraction outcomes (job pursuit intentions, job/or ganization attraction, acceptance intentions, job choice). This meta-analysis helps organize and clarify a rather diverse literature, and there are many specific findings, with the key ones listed below Perceptions of person-organization fit (PO fit) and job/organizational attributes were the strongest predictors of the various recruiting outcomes. The next strongest set of predictors tended to be perceptions of the recruitment process (e.g., fairness), followed by recruiter competencies and hiring expectancies. Interestingly, recruiter demographics or functional occupation showed almost no relationship to the recruitment outcomes. Gender and study context were the only two moderators found to be important (although others may exist that could not be tested). Interestingly, job/organizational attributes and justice perceptions were weighed more heavily by real applicants, suggesting lab studies may be primarily useful for studying early stages of recruitment. There was support for mediated recruitment models, such that recruitment predictors influence job attitudes and job acceptance intentions, which in turn influence job choice. Although acceptance intentions are the best proxy for actual job choice, they are an imperfect proxy.

Discouragingly, actual job choice was studied infrequently and was poorly predicted. On the other hand, given the nominal nature of job choice measures, one must wonder how large this effect should be.

Overall, there is good support linking many recruitment predictors to intention and perceptual criteria. The attributes of the job/organization and fit with the job/organization will influence intentions and (modestly) behavior. Hard criteria are infrequently studied, and when they are, the relationships are much smaller. We need to know how large these relationships could be, or can be, for the top predictors. Finally, demographics of both the applicant and recruiter seem to play a minor role, although individual differences may be more important. (Staffing in the 21st Century: New Challenges and Strategic Opportunities Journal of Management 2006; 32; 868, Robert E.Ployhart).

SELECTION
Whatever form the applications take, there may be a need to s hift them before moving on to the interview stage. Such a shift serves to match the applicants as closely as possible to the job and person specification and to produce a shortlist of people to interview. To avoid any possibility of bias, such shifting should be undertaken by two or more people, and it should involve the direct line manager/supervisor as well as personnel. The shifting stage can also help the organization by providing feedback on the advertising process and the suitability of the application form. It can also identify people who might be useful elsewhere in the organization. If references or medicals are to be taken up before the invitation to interview stage, it should be made clear on the application form/information pack sent to the applicant. If your organization believes that pre-employment health screening is necessary, you must make sure it is carried out in a non -discriminatory way: for instance, do not single out disabled people for medical assessment. If a report from any individual's doctor is sought, then permission must be given by the individual, and they have the right to see the report. The candidates who best match the specifications may then be invited for interview. The invitation letter should tell candidates that they should advise the organization in advance if any particular arrangements need to be made to accommodate them on arrival or during the interview. The invitation lett er should also clearly state whether the organization will pay the candidate's reasonable travel expenses for the interview. A formal definition of selection is as following: It is the process of differentiating between applicants in order to identify (and hire) those with a greater likelihood of success in a job.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

RECRUITMENT SOURCES

INTERVIEWS

RECRUITMENT & SELECTION PROCESS

RECRUITERS

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

HYPOTHESIS 1 H1 = There is relationship between Recruitment and Selection Process and Recruitment Sources. HYPOTHESIS 2 H2 = There is relationship between Recruitment and Selection Process and Interview. HYPOTHESIS 3 H3 = There is relationship between Recruitment and Selection Process and Recruiter.

REFERENCES
Applied Psychology, 73, 467-481. Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Raja Ratnam, N.(1972). Barney & Wright, 1998; Wright, McMahan, & Williams, 1994 Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, and Jones (2005). Dr. Fiona Davidson, Consultant Department of Genito-urinary Medicine St. Georges Hospital London SW17 0QT, 11 November 1999. Delery et al., 1994. Drasgow, F., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). 2nd ed., pp. 577-636). Palo Alto, CA Evers, Anderson, & Voskuijl, 2005; Schmitt, Cortina, Ingerick, & Wiechmann 2003. Eder, R. W. (1989). pp. 113-126. Newbury Park, CA Field, H. S., & Gatewood, R. D. (1989). pp. 145-157. Newbury Park, CA: Freeman et al., 1942. Green et al., 1993. Guion & Highhouse, 2006. Highhouse & Hoffman, 2001. Heneman, Schwab, Huett, & Ford, 1975 Ruane, F. and J. Sutherland (2007), Firm Performance Characteristics and Gender Ownership in aGlobalised Economy, Institute for International Integration Studies, IIIS Discussion Paper,200, Trinity College, Dublin. Robb, A. and J. Wolken (2002), Firm Owner and Financing Chaacteristics; Differences between Female and Male Owned Small Businesses, Finance and Economics Discussion series 2002, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington. Schultz, U., & Leidner, D.E (2002), Studying knowledge management in information systems research: Discourses and Theoretical assumptions. MIS Quarterly, Vol, 26 (3), pp 213- 242. Hakel, 1971.

Hakel Taylor & Collins, 2000.http://www.anu.edu.au/careers,2008. Hoecklin, L(1995) Manging Cuklture for Competitve advantageWokingham,UK: Addison-Wesley. Hofsted, G .(1980) Cultures Consequences. beverly Hills, CA : Sage. Hofstede , G and Bond, M. (1988) Howell,D.C.(1997) Hunt, B (2000) IPCC Politically Restricted Posts, 2008. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 3-9. Jones, 1998; Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998) Jordan, Herriot, & Chalmers, 1991; Schaubroeck, Ganster, & Ployhart / Staffing Review Jackson, Hitt, & DeNisi, 2003). Johns, 1993, pp. 61-73). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Campion, M. A. (1988). Kelley, H. H. (1967 Vol. 15 (pp. 192-238). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Kelley, 1967). Kozlowski and Klein (2000) and Bliese (2000) Kozlowski & Klein, 2000. Latham & Skarlicki, 1995 Robertson et al., 1990. Ployhart, Schneider, & Schmitt, 2006. Ployhart, 2004; Saks, 2005; Taylor & Collins, 2000. Ployhart, 2004. Ployhart & Schneider, 2002), theoretical (Ployhart, 2004), and methodological (Ployhart& Schneider, 2005) Ployhart, Weekley, and Baughman (2006), Ployhart & Schneider, 2005). Ployhart and Schneider (2002, 2005) and Schmitt (2002 Rousseau, 1985 Differences: Strategies

Rynes & Cable, 2003; Saks, 2005. Robertson et al., 1990. Roth & J. Campion, 1992. Ryan & Tippins, 2004. Saks, 2005; Schneider et al., 2000; Taylor & Collins, 2000; Wright & Boswell, 2002 Schneider et al. (2000) Slaughter et al., 2004). Schneider, 1973) Terpstra and Rozell (1993) Theory (Lord & Maher, 1991) Staffing in the 21st Century: New Challenges and Strategic Opportunities Journal of Schmitt & Ostroff, 986; Stohr-Gillmore et al., 1990. Chhabra T.N, Principles & practices of management, Dhanpat Rai and co. (p) Ltd, Delhi, 2000. Practice of Human Resource by Danny Shield

ALLAH RAKHA AKI ZIA MBA----2102029