Effect of public relations planning on human resource management performance of the Independent National Electoral Commission in Nigeria

Figures & data

Source: constructed by author

Table 1. Whether INEC recognizes public relations planning as a management function

		Unstandardized Coeffs		Standardized Coeffs	t-stat	Sig.
S/N	Exogenous Variables	B	Std Error	Beta
	Constant	.531	.077		6.920	.000
1	Increase access to training	.009	.006	.022	1.394	.164
2	Address the problem of scarce resources of INEC	.029	.007	.064	4.067	.000
3	Raise alternative method to funding INEC	−.008	.007	−.017	−1.05	.029
4	Improve quality of INEC employee	.009	.008	.018	1.099	.272
5	To enhance efficiency	−.003	.008	−.006	−.361	.718
6	To align with best practices in other parts of the world.	.005	.008	.009	.555	.579
7	Tackle problem of irregular election	.216	.008	.440	26.80	.000
8	To curb the attitude of corruption	.279	.009	.587	32.58	.000
9	To encourage new ideas	.183	.009	.368	20.71	.000
10	To reward hardworking employees	.176	.008	.350	21.05	.000
11	To enhance security and discipline	.004	.006	.025	1.032	.042

Source: Authors Research Data.

Table 2. If INEC incorporates public relations planning in strategic management

		Unstandardized Coeffs		Standardized Coeffs	t-stat	Sig.
S/N	Exogenous Variables	B	Std Error	Beta
	Constant	.312	.023		4.431	.012
1	INEC is focus-oriented	.019	.056	.034	1.342	.042
2	INEC creates social gaps	.024	.017	.042	2.037	.041
3	Credible election is sacrificed for corruption	.058	.004	−.026	−1.310	.220
4	Poor electoral laws gives rise to corruption	.004	.006	.019	1.032	.023
5	Regular interference from parties	−.013	.018	−.035	−.262	.213
6	Electoral time-tables are campaign-biased	.062	.027	.052	.465	.034
7	Inadequate qualified INEC staff	.162	.036	.430	23.53	.010
8	Ban on party demonstration	.247	.051	.157	32.18	.031
9	Discriminating party rallies	.173	.049	.238	15.41	.002
	Co-efficient of determination	R-Square		.782
		Adjusted R-Square		.764

Source: Authors construction.

Table 3. If INEC acknowledges that organizational performance is partly accredited to the public relations strategies

		Unstandardized Coeffs		Standardized Coeffs	t-stat	Sig.
S/N	Exogenous Variables	B	Std Error	Beta
	Constant	.531	.421		3.632	.023
1	Adequate provision of modern facilities	.014	.037	.053	1.131	.031
2	Adequate funding	.032	.019	.065	−1.017	.141
3	Periodic appraisal of election programmes by the parties	.034	.015	−.078	−1.420	.032
4	Quality working personnel	.014	.016	.039	.072	.043
5	Adequate monitoring of activities	−.017	.012	−.075	−.352	.013
6	Avoidance of illegal elections	.051	.061	.029	.195	.041
7	Operating global competition through ranking	.043	.040	.641	13.01	.052
8	Promote research with improving potentials	.127	.024	.357	17.13	.042
9	Collaboration with foreign electoral bodies	.263	.038	.518	19.31	.022
	Co-efficient of determination	R-Square		.867
		Adjusted R-Square		.843

Source: Authors conception.

Table 4. Z-test of staff ratings of credible performance strategies in human resource management

Types of Staff	N	X	SD	Df	Z-cal	Z-critical	Result
Senior staff (Level 07 and above)	449	4.08	0.610	669	2.41	$\pm$1.960	*S
Junior staff (Level 01–06)	322	3.10	0.514				H02 not accepted

Source: Authors conception, *S = Significant at P 0.05, SD= standard deviation, Df= degree of freedom.

Table 5. Z-test of staff ratings on public relations planning effectiveness on human resource management

Types of staff	N	X	SD	Df	z-cal	z-critical	Result
Senior staff	449	4.45	0.504	669	2.42	$\pm$1.960	*S
Junior staff	322	3.09	0.410				HO2 Rejected

Source: Authors compilation, * S = Significant P $<$0.05, SD= standard deviation, Df= degree of freedom.