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
Copyright
c
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.
40
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 illustratethe
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
41
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].
42
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
X
Video
X X X X X
Blogs
X
43
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.
44
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
45
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
46
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.
47
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.
48