, , , , , , , , , , , ,



Dear cohorts,

I would like to respectfully write some words about the article that was assigned to us this week: 

 Owais Shafique (2012) ‘Recruitment in the 21st Century’. IJCRB.webs.com 4 ( 2) Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research, Available online from: http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=83518189&site=eds-live&scope=site 

I just finished reading it and it is surreal how it lacks basic English writing skills and has a truncated aspect. 

Here I have some examples of the article that show  what I meant by stating the above: 

Strategic recruitment is of vital importance in recruitment planning now a day (now a days). We also found the usefulness of Generation X approach in identifying the differences between the old generation and the young new ( young or new? choose one) Generation x and the different needs and attitudes of both the ( there is no need for “the”)  generations.

…” Try to use “you” instead of “we need” & “must have” this will make applicants feel more affinity to the role and your advertisement. I.e. If it sounds softer, than (then)  it will appeal more to a jobseeker (to the job seeker).

The excerpts above are truncated and contain basic English grammar mistakes.

The second erroneous statement observed refers to a comparison when in reality the author wanted to express conclusion:

 … ”  I.e. If it sounds softer than (then)it will appeal more to a jobseeker. (job seeker)

A possible way to make that point would be: If it sounds softer, then it will be more appealing to job seekers.

More excerpts:

“Don’t just waste your recruitment budget on websites you see them ( there is no need for “them”) on TV or in other mass media! ”

”  If organization fails to fulfill their promise loses employs when they are at their most valuable to the current employer (very confusing statement, it should be rephrased).  Youngsters value their freedom and look far  (for) control over their work life.”

The author uses two words that indicate opposition in the same line of thought or phrase.

” Although strategic approaches to recruitment are rare but recruitment is a strategic opportunity”

I’m not questioning the author’s knowledge in the Human Resources field but how an article that is supposed to be peer reviewed allows this poor English writing. Furthermore, I’m questioning the University of Liverpool that assigned this article for us to study.

Have a nice evening everyone.

Best regards,