The implementer org chart: Where should recruitment fall?

As internationally minded institutions adapt to new business opportunities and new competition, they’re also reshaping themselves to court success. A prime focus should go toward recruiting. Companies and nonprofits which are implementing development projects around the globe would do well to create nimble recruitment teams that are capable of sourcing top talent while navigating the demanding schedules that come with fundraising and proposal writing as well as a fluctuating staff at headquarters and abroad. Should recruiters report to human resources, business development or a hybrid of the two? That’s just one question each organization will have to answer. And as donor belts are tightening and aid agencies like Save the Children move their headquarters to the global South, the way organizations are structuring their recruiting departments is changing. GRM/Future, for instance, just merged its once-independent recruitment department with HR. It’s a decision that could have gone either way, according to a recruiter for the firm. And it has gone many ways in the past few years. Recruitment at MSI, for example, sits under business development, while Abt Associates’ recruiters report to HR. There is more of a hybrid model at Chemonics, where the recruiting department in the HR division serves as a resource for posting and vetting candidates, while the operations teams in the project management units are responsible for interviewing candidates. Proposal recruiting, meanwhile, lies solely within the appropriate regional business unit. Englity’s recruiters, who work predominantly on proposals, report to BD. And QED actually switched from one structure to another — and back again — within the same year, according to a former recruiter for the firm. “I’ve seen a lot of firms doing this... Essentially wherever they are, they change to the opposite, maybe it’s a cyclical thing, every 10 years or so?” one recruiter said of the back-and-forth. Traditionally, recruitment has been housed under the business development or the human resources department, or it’s its own unit, although the latter has become less and less common. Structures are broken down more simply to the terms “centralized” versus “decentralized.” Recruiters under a centralized structure generally report to HR and are tasked with all recruitment — meaning home office, field and proposal — within an organization. A decentralized structure, meanwhile, means recruitment is the responsibility of individuals within business units; recruiting is only one element within the full range of their job responsibilities. Human resources vs. business development There is a case for each, though the pros and cons may vary depending on whether they’re coming from a recruiter or someone else. It may be tempting to see recruitment as a cost that distracts from revenues generated through products and services. But defense and development contractors are in a “unique position” one Washington-based recruiter suggested, because “these firms really only make money in one way, which is labor, or placing a chief of party in the field, for example. They bill on that.” A majority of recruiters who spoke to Devex on the condition that they would not be named said they preferred recruitment functions to be placed within business development. Or is it time for organizations to create a new structure altogether? Whatever structure an organization chooses, it should depend largely on its strategic goals and organizational culture. And there may not be a cost advantage of one structure over another, Kathryn Erskine, director of recruitment for Chemonics International, suggested. Recruitment, she said, is a support function no matter where it sits. “Often, it can be easier to manage staff under a very centralized structure,” Erskine said. “However, this doesn’t always promote a culture of innovation or adaptability. There are tradeoffs with any structure, which is why it is important to align the structure and process with the company’s culture, goals and strengths.” It also depends on how much active project work and home office positions there are to fill versus proposal work, according to Kelly Tobin, recruitment manager for Engility. If there is a large number of home office positions or project openings, recruitment could better fit under HR. For Engility, though, there is a heavy focus on proposal work, so recruiting fits more naturally under BD, she said. “We are primely positioned to contribute to growing the business through bringing in the talent that fuels the growth of the company and through, as we sometimes do, taking the role as capture coordinators and participating in BD capture efforts beyond recruiting,” Tobin said. But deciding which is the best fit in every sense is easier said than done. Organizations might want to require that recruitment report to HR for consistency purposes and to ensure that every employee goes through the same, streamlined process. Reporting to BD, on the other hand, could help foster a better pipeline of talent by allowing the department to more aptly draw on recruiter relationships. Human resources One of the consequences of an HR model is that it tends to slow down recruitment. Proposal recruiters especially, who must adhere to precise deadlines, can have trouble meeting deadlines if asked to report to HR. “We have to worry about internal reports, producing other data and other paperwork that we wouldn’t have to before,” said one experienced recruiter for a Washington, D.C.-based development firm about switching from a BD-housed to a HR-housed structure. As a result, these recruiters may have a tougher time understanding technical dimensions of a position, and they may have fewer networks if they are recruiting for a very diverse technical or regional area, Erskine suggested. Another challenge, several recruiters noted, is the larger shift in career path that occurs when recruiters are asked to start working under HR, which may not be the trajectory they had in mind. “If you ask [recruiters] what they studied, their background is not in HR,” one Washington-based recruiter suggested. “They would have studied international affairs, development, policy. Not many people go into field thinking, ‘I’ll be a recruiter,’ and many are more drawn to BD.” And it doesn’t help if the rest of the organization then misinterprets a recruiter’s role, inquiring about paychecks or bonuses rather than what they might know about a mission or who they could recommend for a project. On the other hand, recruiters do gain an additional path: the path to HR, which may not have been a clear option before. For those recruiters who are interested in growing and becoming a part of HR, the shift in structure can be a plus. For those who aren’t, it’s still helpful to have an in-depth knowledge of HR workings. Recruiters reporting to HR are often more aware of the compliance and legal dimensions of recruitment, and they may have more control over the process flow of applicant tracking systems. Business development The case for a business development model is that it can be a better way to build pipelines. Recruiters under business development are accustomed to identifying candidates, going on recon trips and being responsible for filling each position that’s named, as well as conducting interviews before passing final decisions to technical directors or executive staff. But they might lack an intimate understanding of compliance and HR. “Recruiters who report to BD understand the importance of meeting the requirements of the particular position, and tend to have deeper networks of current field staff who are looking for new opportunities,” said Erskine, who noted that these recruiters are able to look at complementary skill sets for key staff members on a proposal and understand when a strong manager may need to be paired with a strong technical advisor to achieve project goals. One recruiter, who has worked under both structures, said since he began reporting to HR, he’s learned about candidates only once they’re passed to him for collecting paperwork and processing, a stark contrast to the regular contact he kept with candidates while reporting to BD. But there are cons to the BD model, too, especially when it comes to communication. “I think the biggest drawback of not housing recruitment under HR is that it makes it hard for anyone in the company to have the bigger picture in terms of: How many people did we hire this year, who are they, what did we hire them for?” said one recruiter working under a BD model. “It’s a problem when it comes to compliance and reporting.” The recruiter said she enjoys talking to interesting candidates and putting a team together as a proposal recruiter, but pointed to the need for an online database, citing a time she contacted someone for an available position who was already working as COP on a current project for her firm, but wasn’t recorded in the system. An important question to consider when choosing where to house recruitment is: Who is responsible for understanding compliance and regulations? It would be a leap for recruiters who worked under BD to move to HR and tackle new veteran’s regulations or become knowledgeable about local labor laws in Ethiopia, for instance. The best of both? No matter what, recruiters must have interface with both HR and with BD departments, which is perhaps why Chemonics, for example, has divvied its recruiting to several different departments so that “it is everyone’s job to recruit motivated, mission-driven professionals,” Erskine said. In today’s climate of tightening belts and the diversification of funding streams, it might make sense to adopt a BD focus to put more effort into sustaining revenues. But firms must also consider the scope of work of their recruiters. Regardless of where recruitment is housed, firms are advised to fully integrate their application system with other systems — perhaps those that project staff use to register consultants, for example — to foster heightened communication and ensure that all of that data is on file and accessible. Recruitment is about building relationships and about acting as an advocate for a firm during those crucial first interactions — to secure the team that will implement a successful project. Wherever the team is officially housed, the unique role of recruitment should remain just that. Where do you think recruitment should be housed within an organization? How does your employer structure HR and recruitment functions? Let us know by leaving a comment below. Check out more career advice stories online, and subscribe to Doing Good to receive top international development career and recruitment news.