Recruit and Retain or Attract and Engage?
This morning, I came across a thought-provoking piece in Diversity Executive by Susana Rinderle entitled, "Attraction and Engagement, Not Recruitment and Retention."
Rinderle suggests that when it comes to hiring, specifically with the goal of increasing diversity, using terms like "recruit"--which she believes has a "military flavor, and imples one 'goes out and gets'"--and "retention" ("A passive term, and imples mere holding onto"), comes across as controling, uninspiring, and not enticing to high potential candidates.
She notes that "recruiting" for diversity is both costly and inefficient; however, if an organization's values, culture, and systems champion diversity and high performance, individuals will be "attracted" to it. Likewise, she asks, rather than focusing on forcing people to stay, what if we engaged them and inspired them to stay? She believes this will result in employees who are "eager to contribute their brilliance to your organizaiton and its mission."
While some might consider this shift mere semantics, I think it makes an important point. It's especially interesting when you look at how organizations brand themseleves, as well as the research on employee engagement and performance from a variety of organziaitons.
So, what do you think? Recruit and retain or attract and engage? Share your feelings in the comments section below or on Twitter using the hashtag, #K12Talent.