e-Recruitment: New Practices, New Issues

An Exploratory Study

Aurélie Girard and Bernard Fallery

CREGOR, Case Courrier 028, University of Montpellier 2, 34000 Montpellier, France

Abstract. The Internet as already impacts the recruitment process and the

development of Web 2.0 offers recruiters new perspectives. Are web 2.0

practices revealing new e-recruitment strategies? We connect first the RBV and

the SNT respectively with Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. Then, we present the results

from an exploratory study conducted among recruiters in software and

computing services companies. It appears that the use of Web 1.0 is generalized

but that it is becoming insufficient. Web 2.0 is used by firms to develop

employer branding and a reputation and to create new relationships with

potential applicants.

1 Introduction

“Every sector, every job, every function, was, is or will be disrupted by Internet”

stated Kalika in 2000 [19]. The HR sector is undergoing a transformation. In August

2007, Monster France had more than 3 million CVs on their databases and LinkedIn’s

social network had over 36 million members around the world in February 2009.

According to Lepak and Snell (1998) [22], the HR Function must confront four

seemingly contradictory pressures. HR departments are required to be simultaneously

strategic, flexible, efficient, and customer-oriented. Certain authors have suggested

that the use of technology may enable them to achieve these goals [36, 22, 21].

Recruitment plays a critical role in enhancing organizational survival and success

[29]. The recruitment process has been profoundly affected by major changes: the

retirement of the "baby boomers", an increasing need for flexibility and

responsiveness, and complex modes of communication. The development of new

“social and sociable” media technology [26] called “Web 2.0” offers companies and

their recruiters new perspectives. Despite the growing importance of e-recruitment,

research in this area remains very limited and applicant-oriented [6, 23].

Our main research issue is: Are web 2.0 practices revealing new e-recruitement

strategies?

In the first part of this paper we linked the Resource Based View with Web 1.0 and

the Social Network Theory with Web 2.0. In the second part, the results of an

exploratory study on the recruitment practices of Software and Computing Services

Companies (SCSC) are exposed. Both parts, give us the possibility to develop an e-

recruitment model based on Ruël et al.’s (2004) [36] e-HRM model. 2.

Girard A. and Fallery B. (2009).

e-Recruitment: New Practices, New Issues An Exploratory Study.

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Human Resource Information Systems, pages 39-48

DOI: 10.5220/0002174100390048

 SciTePress

2 Competencies, Social Networks and e-Recruitment

2.1 Resource-based View and e-Recruitment 1.0

The recruitment process is in harmony with a comprehensive approach to competence

management [11]: acquire, promote and regulate individual and collective skills.

Today, competence management is considered to be strategic and a source of

competitive advantage [12].

Thus, according to the Resource-Based View [2], companies should not be seen

only in terms of their business portfolio, but should be defined as a unique set of

tangible and intangible resources, a portfolio of core competencies and distinct

resources [33]. Employees also play a real role in the success of organizations.

The nature of work in the 21st century presents many challenges for recruitment

[32]: knowledge-based work places greater demands on employee competencies;

demographic, societal, and cultural changes are widespread and are creating an

increasing global shortfall in the number of qualified applicants; the workforce is also

increasingly diverse [32]. Chambers et al. [8] use the term "the war for talents".

Recruitment is thus the first stage in a comprehensive approach to competence and

talent management. Peretti (2004) [31] divides the recruitment activity into four

stages: preparation, research, selection and integration. With the Internet, recruitment

methods are evolving and diversifying. According to a recent survey conducted by

APEC [1], the French association for executive employment, the job market is

becoming more and more transparent: 63% of recruitment operations result in job

advertisements. E-recruitment can be defined as “the use of any technology to attract,

select or manage the recruitment process” [30] (p. 5).

In this perspective we can distinguish three main aspects of web 1.0:

Career websites to improve the visitor’s knowledge of a company, promote an

attractive image of an employer and of course generating applications [9, 27].

Job boards to give companies the possibility of communicating their job offers to

a large public. Job boards can be generalist, like Monster, or specialized to provide

more targeted information and more qualified CVs [13].

Recruitment systems have several benefits: cost reduction, efficiency gains,

improved service to clients and improved strategic orientation [30]. Lee (2005) [20]

developed a five-stage evolution model for the e-recruiting system.

The development of these different tools gives companies the possibility to access

to important data bases of competencies. With Web 1.0 applications they can

communicate on a large scale, target and manage the future core competencies of the

company to obtain a competitive advantage in line with the RBV.

2.2 Social Network Theory and e-Recruitment 2.0

Social Network and Social Capital are two closely linked notions that can be assessed

in terms of three dimensions: the strength of the ties, the network’s structure and the

nature of the contact attributes.

Bourdieu (1986) [5] defined social capital as “the aggregate of actual or potential

resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less

institutionalized relationships of more or mutual acquaintance and recognition” (p.

248). Granovetter (1973) [16] has regularly used the job market to illustrate“the

strength of weak ties”. Burt (1992) [7] qualify the absence of bridges between groups

as “structural holes” and highlights the competitive advantage it represents with

respect to informational benefits. Coleman (1988) [10] and Putnam (1995) [34] do not

share this point of view. They highlight the importance of trust in the development of

social capital. For Lin et al. (1981) [24], what is important it is not the strength of the

ties maintained with an individual, but the resources accessible through the latter: the

higher the contact status used, the higher the occupational status obtained.

From an applicant’s point of view, mobilizing a social network makes it possible to

obtain more information about the company and the job [35, 16, 18]. This method

may also enable applicants to acquire better wages [17, 18]). From an employer’s

perspective, according to Rees (1966) [35], making use of one’s own network or that

of the staff should limit the number of applications whilst simultaneously ensuring

their quality and also reduce absenteeism and turnover. This method is both less

expensive and more effective because of the confidence there is in the applications

[18]. Companies no longer think twice about seeking out their employees’ networks.

Some have formalized this method and put in place an effective cooptation policy. A

survey conducted by DARES shows that over 50% of recruiters mobilize their

networks during the recruitment process [15].

Social network has been widely associated with the term Web 2.0 [28]. This term

is still much criticized; however, it represents real evolution in the Web. Web 1.0

fitted into a scheme of "author to readers" while the Web 2.0 tends to reduce

hierarchies by allowing readers to become real actors. It is user-centered and it

enhances information sharing.

In the recruitment framework, the most representative Web 2.0 tools are:

Blogs, created by applicants and employers and headhunters (Hightech-job).

Online Social Networks: Facebook or professional (LinkedIn or Viadeo) to find

customers, partners and future employees, to hunt and contact “passive” applicants.

Virtual worlds: In June 2007, the first French recruitment forum on Second Life,

was organized (1,500 participants).

Cooptation websites where people are motivated (financially speaking) to find

potential applicants within their entourage and to attract to new talents (Jobmeeters).

Identity management websites, such as Ziki, improve the visibility on the internet

by, for example, centralizing and synchronizing on one page: your blog, your social

profiles… and by promoting your page through a Google commercial link.

RSS feeds (Real Simple Syndication), where updated information can be

automatically posted on a search engine of job offers (Moovement for example), or

RSS aggregators (like Netvibes and iGoogle).

Video platforms, such as Youtube or Youjob, give companies the opportunity to

present their job offers, and applicants the possibility of introducing their CV.

Web 2.0 gives companies the possibility to put forward and increase their social

capital. Employees and applicants can have access to a wider network, maintain and

develop new relationships. Recruiters can directly contact people with interesting

profiles which did not apply before. According to the SNT, developing, mobilizing a

social network represents several advantages for both applicants and employers.

3 Results of an Exploratory Study

The aim of this study is to determine if Web 2.0 tools are really used by companies,

how they use it and for what purpose. In the present case, we have chosen to study

software and computing service companies (SCSC). They have considerable

recruitment activity and they use Internet widely.

The exploratory study was carried out from May to June 2008. It was based on

semi-directive interviews, with either face to face or telephone interviews. This

method of data collection is justified by the exploratory nature of the study and the

type of data collected: current recruitment practices, the practices that are considered,

reasons, opinions. The sample was chosen for convenience. Although the size of the

sample may seem small, if we consider the size of the companies interviewed and

their recruitment dynamism, this sample nevertheless provides a global view of the

phenomenon. Data saturation was achieved after eleven interviews; those interviews

have been recorded and transcribed.

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Number of people /

number of companies

11 recruiters including 2 from the same company (1 located in a country

city and the other in the Head Office).

Affiliated organization size

1 company has less than 100 employees, 3 between 2,500 and 4,999, 4

between 5,000 and 10,000, 2 more than 10,000.

Location and local agency

size

5 people were at the Head Office, 6 at local agencies: 1 agency has less

than 100 employees, 5 between 100 and 500.

Recruitment plan for 2008

1 company does not have specific objectives, 2 are planning between 500

and 1,000 recruitments, 7 between 1,500 and 2,500.

After transcription, a content analysis was performed by coding themes and

defining a reading grid. A second phase of coding consisted in comparing each

interview, from which five main results emerged. Pragmatic validity was estimated by

sending results to participants and analyzing their comments.

3.1 The Competence Profile is Becoming more Important than Position Profile

5 companies declared to think exclusively in terms of competence profile and not in

terms of position profile. The 5 others adopt both types of recruitment, but think more

in terms of competence. Each company mentioned that this practice enables them to

anticipate their needs. Internships are a starting point for young graduates to integrate

the organization. Applicants are mainly hired on an open-ended work contract. These

results are in line with the strategic evolution of competence management [12].

3.2 Web 1.0 is Essential for Recruitment Transactions but is Becoming

Insufficient

Job boards, career websites and recruitment systems are used by all companies (see

table 2). Most recruiters think that Web 1.0 enabled them to advertise job offers easily

and cheaply, whilst appealing to a larger public and making better application

management possible. This result is in line with Parry and Tyson (2008) [30].

However, considering the highly competitive environment in which SCSC operate,

the classic Web (or Web 1.0) is becoming insufficient for recruitment purposes.

“The classic Web still remains a support that cannot be ignored […] but it is not

sufficient anymore”. “Service companies have approximately the same needs and

tend to contact the same profiles available on classic job boards, which tend to

increase wage demands, expectations, and applicants’ demands in general.”

Table 2. Classic tools (Web 1.0) used by SCSC for recruiting.

SCSC

Means

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Job boards

X X X X X X X X X X

Career websites

X X X X X X X X X X

Software

X X X X X X X X X X

Internships

X X X X X X X X X X

Cooptation policy

X X X X X X X

Recruitment agencies

X X X X X X

Events planning

X X X X X X X X X

3.3 Web 2.0 is used to Develop an Employer’s Branding and Reputation

SCSC use Web 2.0 as a complement to “real” events (student events, speed-recruiting

sessions…). Web 2.0 is considered to be a means of communication and

differentiation. SecondLife is the most representative example. Of the 10 companies

contacted, 3 have already launched a recruitment session on Second Life in 2007.

Few applicants were hired (about 1 to 3 recruitments) but it allowed the companies

involved to convey an innovative image of themselves. However, no further

recruitment sessions are planned. The others companies do not intend to invest in

SecondLife. This is no longer considered to be as interesting as it used to be.

Table 3. Web 2.0 tools used by SCSC for recruiting.

Web 2.0

X X X X X X X X

SecondLife

X X X

Viadeo

X X X X X X X

Facebook

Video

X X X X X

Blogs

3.4 Web 2.0 makes it Possible to Manage New Relationships with Applicants

Web 2.0 gives SCSC the opportunity to increase their social capital by creating new

relationships and reaching out to potential applicants. Members of social networks are

not always in-between jobs but they stay open to job opportunities. These “passive

applicants” are interesting for SCSC that are constantly searching for new profiles.

“This technology [Web 2.0] makes it possible for us to approach applicants

differently, nowadays we recruit differently”.

Innovative practices appear and tend to develop. 7 companies use Viadeo’s social

network (since 2008). Facebook is used by one company through an application that

allows employees to display open positions on their profiles. Another company is

developing its own application. 5 companies have participated in recruitment sessions

through video conferences via YouJob or Waliitech and/or have used video to hold an

interview and promote the company (for example Enlignepourlemploi). One company

has created blogs about different parts of its activities to demonstrate its expertise,

develop communities, and promote the company. It uses the Netvibes aggregator to

create a unique information space. These practices are recent; we do not have the

required distance regarding the outcomes of Web 2.0.

Web 2.0 used as complementary information about an applicant that has already

been identified has divided opinions. Three recruiters think that this practice enables

them to see the applicant from a different perspective. The others were more critical,

for several reasons, including lack of time, lack of efficiency and lack of ethics.

3.5 Two Possible Evolutions: Decentralization of Recruitment Responsibilities

or Development of Outsourcing

Of the 9 companies with local agencies, 8 have decentralized recruitment

management. Each agency carries out its own research and interviews and has access

to CV databases. The software makes it possible to share information better and

encourages decentralization of recruitment responsibilities into the regions.

In addition, the development of online social networks could generate a

decentralization of recruitment responsibilities to employees. 9 out of 10 companies

have implemented a genuine cooptation policy. Companies declare that applications

are generally of better quality. Web 2.0 could facilitate this policy. 2 companies

encourage their teams to co-opt through these networks and develop their social

capital. This decentralization phenomenon is in line with Ruël et al. (2004) [36].

Conversely, Web 2.0 practices could be externalized toward recruitment agencies.

This possibility runs counter to the externalization conditions defined by Lepak and

Snell (1998) [22], according to which the core HR activities are capable of

being supported internally as a means of achieving competitive advantage.

Recruitment agencies can, however, provide expertise and offer confidentiality.

Evolutions observed in the literature and in the exploratory study are presented in

the table below. Obviously, e-Recruitment 1.0 and e-Recruitment 2.0 are not in

opposition to one another; they may even be complementary.

Table 4. e-Recruitment 1.0 versus e-Recruitment 2.0.

e-Recruitment 1.0 e-Recruitment 2.0

Large job boards Development of new services, social networks

Subscription to CV databases Almost free CV and profiles (especially on blogs)

E-mail alerts ("push mail" service) RSS feeds, real-time information

Basic job advertisement (text) Rich media advertisement (audio, video, animation)

Active recruiters (job advertising) or even

passive recruiters (CV selection)

Proactive recruiters (social networks, blogs…)

Active applicants (CV posting, reply to

advertisement )

"Passive" or "Proactive" applicants (open to market

opportunities)

Jobs forum Virtual jobs forum, online events

Classic communication (advertisment) Development of employer’s reputation and branding

Centralization of recruitment management

Decentralization of recruitment responsibilities (easy

cooptation through social networks) and/or Externalization

toward recruitment agencies.

From Transactional recruitment (one-shot,

short term)…

… to Relational recruitment (applicant relationship

management, long term) or even transformational

recruitment (strategic role)

The literature review and exploratory study give a better understanding of

recruitment issues. Internet is essential; the interviewed recruiters do not imagine

recruitment without Internet. Web 1.0 brought tools giving access to important data

bases of competencies. Web 2.0 reveals the shift from exchange-based recruitment

practices to relationship-based approaches. Recruiters can increase their social capital

by creating new relationships and reaching out to potential applicants. They can also

develop employer branding and reputation and play a more strategic role within the

company.

4 Discussion and Conclusion

Based on the literature review and exploratory study we can extend our research by

developing an e-recruitment model adapted from Ruel et al.’s e-HRM model,

following the same division: strategy, goals, type and outcomes (see Fig. 1).

Initial Recruitment Strategy, in line with Beyssere des Horts (1987) [4]. Profit

strategy is used in organizations with mature activities. The recruitment process is

very standardized. Positions are explicitly described. We can refer to this as

recruitment by profile. Dynamic growth strategy

is used in organizations where

activities are growing quickly. The recruitment process is not formalized and

concerns applicants with high potential. It is recruitment by competence, favoring

experienced profiles. Managerial strategy

is used in organizations which are starting

their activity or developing new ones. The recruitment process is open. It concerns

mainly young applicants with potential. It is recruitment by competence, favoring

young potential.

Fig. 1. e-Recruitment model, adapted from Ruël et al.’s (2004) [36] e-HRM Model.

e-Recruitment Goals. Efficiency and processes: the recruitment function, like the

HR function, should work efficiently and be aware of costs [22, 21, 36]. Applicant

relationship management: technology could make it possible to ensure better

management of applications [30]. According to our exploratory study, Web 2.0 offers

means for engaging relationships with passive applicants. Employer branding and

reputation: HR practices can contribute to corporate reputations and branding [25],

Web 2.0 can be a solid support.

e-Recruitment Type, based on Lepak and Snell’s (1998) [22] HRM type.

Operational e-Recruitment

: concerns basic e-Recruitment transactions characterized

by short term applicant relationships, global messages and automation. Relational e-

Recruitment characterized by the development of “real” applicant relationships

through better feed-back, and the use of Web 2.0 tools. Transformational e-

Recruitment concerns strategic e-Recruitment, anchored in a talent management

strategy [14]. Employer branding and reputation could be a solid support.

e-Recruitment Outcomes, adapted from Beer et al.’s (1984) [3] outcomes. High

commitment: such outcomes can be characterized in terms of job satisfaction,

psychological contract, motivation, integration. High competence

: this points towards

the ability employees have to learn new tasks and roles. It requires careful selection of

employees from the beginning. Cost effectiveness

can be attained by means of

recruitment activities by accurately setting pay levels, rigorous selection that

improves job satisfaction and performance. Higher congruence

concerns the internal

organization, the ‘input, throughput, and output’ of personnel structured in the

interests of all stakeholders. Recruitment represents an ‘input’ of personnel, which is

the basis for developing a coherent and satisfying workforce organization.

As a conclusion, new practices and issues are emerging. Nowadays, Internet seems

essential for recruitment activity. Web 1.0 brought tools giving access to important

data bases of competencies. Web 2.0 reveals the shift from exchange-based

recruitment practices to relationship-based approaches.

The model makes it possible to obtain a global view of e-recruitment issues. It

must now be validated by means of empirical research. Other sectors and other type

of recruiters (for example headhunters) are worth considering in order to see the

possible differences in e-recruitment practices. It would be interesting to adopt a dual

approach, by studying the applicant’s point of view to detect what changes Web 2.0

brings to their professional development. European comparison would make it

possible to identify the differences in practices. It could be worth considering other

issues especially reputation, privacy and security issues.

References

1. APEC (2006). Le marché de l’emploi cadre à l’heure d’Internet.

2. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17, 99-120.

3. Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P., Mills, Q., Walton, R. (1984). Managing Human

Assets. New York: The Free Press.

4. Beyssere des Horts, C-H. (1988): Vers une gestion stratégique des ressources humaines,

Paris, Editions d’Organisation.

5. Bourdieu, P. (1986): The forms of capital. In: Handbook of theory and research for the

sociology of education. J. G. Richardson (éd.), New York, Greenwood: 241-258.

6. Breaugh, J. A., and Starke, M. (2000). Research on Employee Recruitment: So Many

Studies, So Many Remaining Questions. Journal of Management, 26, 405-434.

7. Burt R. (1992). Structural Holes, The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University

Press.

8. Chambers, E. G., Foulton, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S. M., and Michaels Ill, E. G.

(1998). The War for Talent. The McKinsey Quarterly, 44-57.

9. Cober, R.T., Brown, D.J. and Levy, P.E. (2004). Form, content and function: an evaluative

methodology for corporate employment websites. Human Resource Management, 43, 201-

218.

10. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the creation of Human Capital. The American

Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.

11. Defélix C. (2003). Ce que gérer les compétences veut dire, 121-128, In: Compétences et

connaissances dans les organisations, A.-M. Guénette, M. Rossi et J.-C. Sardas (dir),

SEES.

12. Dietrich, A. and Pigeyre, F. (2005). La gestion des ressources humaines, Paris, La

Découverte, collection Repères.

13. Fondeur, Y. (2006). Internet, recrutement et recherche d'emploi: une introduction. La Revue

de l'IRES, 3, 3-10.

14. Foster, L. (2005). Confronting the global brain drain.Knowledge Management Review, 8,

28.

15. Garner H., and Lutinier B. (2006). Les procédures de recrutement: canaux et modes de

sélection. Premières synthèses, Dares, 48, 1-8.

16. Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,

1360-1380.

17. Granovetter M. (1995). Getting a Job, The University of Chicago Press.

18. Holzer, H. J. (1988). Search Method Use by Unemployed Youth. Journal of Labor

Economics, 6, 1.

19. Kalika, M. (2000). Le management est mort, vive le e-management! Revue Française de

Gestion, 68-74.

20. Lee, I. (2005). The Evolution of E-Recruiting: A Content Analysis of Fortune 100 Career

Web Sites. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 3(3), 57-68.

21. Lengnick-Hall, M., Moritz, S., and Mark, L. (2003). The Impact of e-HR on the Human

Resource Management Function. Journal of Labor Research, 24, 365-379.

22. Lepak, D., and Snell, S. (1998). Virtual HR: strategic human resource management in the

21st century. Human Resource Management Review, 8, 215-234.

23. Lievens, F., van Dam, K. and Anderson, N. (2002). Recent trends and challenges in

personnel selection. Personnel Review, 31, 580-601.

24. Lin N., Ensel W., and Vaughn J. (1981). Social Resources and Strength of Ties: Structural

Factors in Occupational Status Attainment. American Sociological Review, 46, 393-405.

25. Martin, G. and Hetrick, S. (2006). Driving corporate reputations and brands from the

inside: A strategic role for HR. In: Global Reputation Institute Conference, New York,

USA.

26. Martin G., Reddington M., Kneafsey M. B. and Sloman M. (2008). Web 2.0 and HRM: A

Discussion Document. CIPD.

27. Maurer, S. D., and Liu, Y. (2007). Developing effective e-recruiting websites: Insights for

managers from marketers. Business Horizons, 50, 305-314.

28. O'Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next

Generation of Software. O'reillynet.com

29. Parbudyal, S., and Dale, F. (2003). The Effects of Information Technology on Recruitment.

Journal of Labor Research, 24, 395-408.

30. Parry, E, and Tyson, S. (2008). Can technology transform HR processes? The case of UK

recruitment. In: The Second European Academic Workshop on Electronic Human Resource

Management, Carry le Rouet, 2008.

31. Peretti, J-M. (2004). Ressources Humaines, Paris, Vuibert.

32. Ployhart, R. E. (2006). Staffing in the 21st Century: New Challenges and Strategic

Opportunities. Journal of Management, 32, 868.

33. Prahalad, C. K., and Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard

Business Review, 68, 79-93.

34. Putnam, R (1995). Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of

Democracy, 6, 65-78.

35. Rees, A. (1966). Information Networks in Labor Markets. American Economic Review, 56,

559-566.

36. Ruël, H., Looise, J., and Bondarouk, T. (2004). E-HRM: Innovation or Irritation. An

Explorative Empirical Study in Five Large Companies on Web-based HRM. Management

Revue, 15, 364-380.