Recruitment Strategies to Win Over Top External Talent

High candidate expectations for streamlined hiring processes and increased competition from out-of-sector employers have made it more challenging than ever for higher ed to attract top talent. Current higher ed hiring practices miss opportunities to diversify their talent pool, overburden applicants with difficult processes, and fail to provide reasons why candidates should choose their institution over another employer. Colleges and universities must change their approach to recruiting and onboarding to meet candidate needs and compete with out-of-sector employers.

This report outlines the urgency drivers for why higher ed must modernize its recruiting and onboarding strategies to attract talent. Then, it provides campus leaders with 10 foundational solutions to common challenges across the major phases of the talent acquisition process that out-of-sector competitors have already implemented.

Download the full report or read the highlights below.

Why it’s harder than ever to attract top talent

Pressure #1: Recruit-hire-turnover-repeat

The onset of the global COVID-19 pandemic spurred many institutions to implement hiring freezes and reductions in force, collectively leading to a significant decrease in the higher ed workforce, as shown in the graph below.

Once in-person operations resumed, though, higher ed’s need for staff quickly intensified. But this coincided with a broader reshuffling of the labor force amid the Great Resignation, making it even harder for institutions to staff back up to pre-pandemic levels. Some institutions have largely managed to recover, which is a testament to the diligence of campus leaders and HR teams.

Yet, despite nearing pre-pandemic staffing levels, campus leaders have felt little reprieve. Institutions are caught in a seemingly endless recruitment cycle as hiring intensity cannot keep pace with turnover. While higher ed hiring grew 10 percent across 2021 to 2022, turnover remained around 10 to 15 percent.

This cycle of recruiting and hiring a candidate while turnover remains high is unsustainable for HR staff, who are often not adequately structured, staffed, or equipped to maintain this level of recruiting.

Herculean hiring efforts brought higher ed back near pre-pandemic staffing levels

Percent change in total employees, seasonally adjusted

Pressure #2: Your competition might surprise you (or not…)

Higher ed increasingly competes with a bigger, more diverse, and often well-resourced competitive set, which is one of the reasons why they have struggled to recover to pre-pandemic staffing levels. Historically, institutions largely competed with other higher ed peers in their region. Now, institutions face a nationalized and diverse set of higher ed and out-of-sector competitors for talent.

Out-of-sector employers increasingly use competency-based interviewing and hiring, which prioritizes skills rather than specific experiences. Competency-based hiring provides an opportunity for diverse applicants from across sectors, including higher ed, to be considered for a wider range of jobs.

Additionally, many out-of-sector organizations offer remote work, which has nationalized the labor market for some roles and industries. Today, employers can more easily attract many staff without historic geographic constraints.

This change in competitive set increases the pressure on higher ed to adapt its traditional recruitment and onboarding strategies to compete with out-of-sector best practices.

Pressure #3: Preparing for a five-generation workforce

On top of contending with greater turnover and increased out-of-sector competition, colleges and universities must adapt to generational shifts within the workforce.

In 2021, Boomers and Gen X comprised half of the higher ed workforce, while millennials represented a third, and Gen Z made up a minority. As a result, institutions have catered their benefits to Gen X and Boomers.

But by 2031, Millennials, Gen Z, and Gen Alpha will comprise 70 percent of the higher ed workforce. These generations have distinct preferences for benefits like holistic well-being support (e.g., sense of community, physical health), financial security, and a focus on social issues, as shown in the graphic below.

Fringe benefits not calibrated to preferences of fastest-growing parts of workforce