One of the most important human capital issues continues to be the recruitment of a diverse workforce. This is driven by a number of factors. First, the reality is that the talent pool from which to source is increasingly more diverse along race, gender, religion, age, social, sexual orientation, gender identity, ideological and other lines. Second, organizations have taken the position that diversity is a reality that must be harnessed for superior organizational performance. Third, in the post civil rights era, there has been a backlash against Affirmative Action causing many organizations to gravitate towards “diversity” broadly defined. Fourth, whether they will admit it or not, many organizations, including corporations and law firms, are under significant and in some cases unyielding pressure to improve the complexion of their workforces.

The failure by organizations to yield to this pressure can and does result in loss of business. Finally, there have been a series of court cases starting with Bakke and ending with Parents United which are laying bare a conservative judiciary’s impatience with and disdain for efforts by organizations to “socially engineer” racial, ethnic and gender diversity through the use of Affirmative Action and other efforts.

The debate in many organizations is not whether there should be an emphasis in recruiting for diversity. The debate instead, is whether an organization should strategically address “recruiting” or whether it should address “diversity recruiting.” In fact, many diversity professionals, recruiters and others, struggle to articulate whether there is a difference between recruiting for diversity and recruiting in general. If they are honest about it, many people would admit that they are not sure what "diversity recruiting" is.

Diversity recruiting: what’s the difference?
My position is that there is in fact a substantive and significant difference between recruiting and diversity recruiting. Moreover, the failure to understand this distinction is in large part responsible for many organizations’ inability to improve their diversity profile.

Simply put, recruiting is the process that an organization uses to source, interview and select employees. Diversity recruiting is a strategic process by which the organization ensures that candidates for all positions at all levels reflect diversity as defined by the organization. Diversity recruiting has absolutely nothing to do with filling positions solely on the basis of demographic profile.

Moreover, diversity recruiting has nothing to do with hiring “qualified” women and minority candidates. In fact, the use of the word “qualified” is often used by an organization in its recruiting process to send a not so subtle signal that it is not “lowering standards” by hiring women and minorities. The problem with this of course is that the critical assumption in a diversity recruiting strategy is that women and minorities would not be in the pool if they did not meet the organizations qualifications. So, by using the term “qualified,” the organization makes it clear that it fundamentally believes that persons in these two groups are inherently” unqualified.”

Guidelines for developing a diversity recruiting strategy
In this article, I list and explain the difference between recruiting and diversity recruiting and provide some guidance for organizations in developing a strategy for diversity recruiting.

• Recruiting or staffing? I am often called upon by organizations who want me to help them develop a diversity recruiting strategy. The problem in many of these organizations is that they staff their organization. They do not recruit. In other words, there are not adequate discussions and planning about forecasting, sourcing, interviewing and selection. Clearly then, there is no strategy here. It is difficult then to develop a diversity recruiting strategy when the organization’s philosophy and approach is to fill the positions as quickly as possible. Period.
• Defining diversity. In the organizations where there is recruiting, the organization has not defined what improving its diversity profile means. That is, does diversity mean only demographic diversity? If so, why? What are the potential legal implications? What is the number of “diversity hires” that will improve the profile? Is diversity a floor or ceiling in this organization?
• Too much reliance on tactics and no appetite for strategy. Many organizations simply want to know “where to find “diverse candidates. They have no plan to develop relationships with people and organizations who can help them build diverse pipeline for all positions at all levels.
• Branding. Many organizations pay too little attention to their employment brand and their demonstrated commitment to diversity. Diverse people want to work for organizations that show a commitment to diversity, not simply say that they are committed to diversity. Many employment brands featuring visibly diverse employees often reinforce existing stereotypes by representing these employees in print and other media as working almost exclusively in the lower echelons of the organization.
• Poor interviewers. Organizations that have a diversity recruiting strategy ensure that persons conducting interviews understand the importance of diversity to the organization. These individuals demonstrate their understanding through the types of questions they ask during the interview, their cultural competence when interviewing, and their ability to make selections on the basis of specific and particular qualifications and experience, not on the vague and amorphous code words of “fit” and “team player.”
• Experience versus tenure. I recently developed a diversity recruiting strategy for an organization where I had to remind them that job hopping is no longer an automatic disqualifier. The reality is that “employment for life” is the exception rather than the rule. We have an entire generation of employees who have seen their parents laid off, downsized or made available to the industry. As such, they gain the kinds of experience they need and move on. The question in a diversity recruiting strategy is how job hopping should be assessed and evaluated.
• Building Diversity Networks. The problem is that many organizations simply want to outsource the diversity recruiting function to “diversity recruiting firms” rather than insist that their recruiting team develop, nurture, and strength diversity networks that will help source the candidates that will in turn, fill the pipeline.
• Middle Managers. Middle managers need to be told what a diversity recruiting strategy is, what their role is in implementing in, what support they will lend, the value proposition for the strategy, and how they will be held accountable for its success as well as rewarded and recognized.
• Accountability. Many organizations simply assign accountability to the “diversity person” or the “HR function” rather than hold senior leaders responsible for the success of a viable diversity strategy.
• Evaluation. Finally, the strategy must be revisited, evaluated, deconstructed and redesigned as needed. This is the only way that organizations can adequately judge their success, failures and opportunities.