Do evergreen job requisitions need to be handled differently than other requisitions?
The quick answer is No with the caveat of having a compliant recruiting, applicant tracking and selection process. First, it would be useful to determine if evergreen jobs are really that different from other open positions. To ensure that we are on the same page with the terms, here is how I define the two types of positions for purposes of this article. Also, note that I will be referring to positions, jobs, openings and/or requisitions synonymously.
Evergreen jobs are typically defined as always open. They were so named after the evergreen trees which are green year round. Evergreen positions are typically used for sourcing and not for hiring; however, you will see below how evergreen positions can turn into open positions at any time. You will also learn how to handle evergreen requisitions if and when they turn into open requisitions.
There are many arguments for having perpetually open positions, such as:
Let’s evaluate how evergreen jobs differ from open positions and address how they can create compliance concerns. The goal of creating evergreen jobs is to ensure that positions are open so that locating and hiring candidates at any time is possible. Upon finding a good candidate, some companies may create a new position or offer temporary assignments until a position opens up. Later in the article, I will address concerns about this first practice. Many recruiters and managers feel that evergreen jobs can improve their chances of recruiting top talent instead of limiting the search to talent in the market at a given time.
From a compliance standpoint, do these evergreen jobs create a problem?
I would argue that they are both open positions and don’t create a compliance problem unless they are treated differently, up to the point of the AAP data collection. Both positions require the following activities to ensure compliance with E.O. 11246, VEVRAA and Section 503.
How would you handle the above compliance activities differently for evergreen requisitions?
First, with regard to the state job listings, for evergreen positions it may be difficult to determine the state in which the position will be placed until after the hire has been made. Keep in mind that you will not have to demonstrate to OFCCP the listing of evergreen positions that are not actually filled. I would suggest listing in the state where the recruiting function is performed or at the headquarters location. Second, the impact ratio analysis would not need to be conducted for unfilled evergreen positions.
Since what I am proposing may be different than what others may have suggested, I think that it would be helpful to understand the flow of an evergreen requisition compared to the flow of an open requisition. Think of the process of the evergreen position as a timeline with the timeline always ending after three months or when the position is filled, whichever comes first. This is to help manage and limit the size of the applicant pool for when a position is filled.
Evergreen Requisition Process
Open Requisition Process
There are some contractors that may think that the best approach is to always keep the evergreen requisition open. When they want to hire someone who applied for the evergreen requisition, they open up a new requisition and place the hire into it. Even though this method would limit the size of the applicant pool, for the following reasons, I would not suggest this approach.
Here are some typical scenarios which illustrate the different outcomes depending on how you manage the evergreen requisition. Scenarios one and two follow along with my recommendations above.
Scenario One – Requisition not filled, closed after three months and a new evergreen requisition is opened
End result – zero applicants are counted toward the AAP data.
Scenario Two – Requisition filled within the three months, closed out and a new evergreen requisition is opened
End result – 20 applicants are counted toward the AAP data.
Scenario Three – Requisition remains open for the entire AAP year (not recommended)
End result – 140 applicants are counted toward the AAP data.
As you can see from the above illustration, keeping the evergreen requisition open for the entire AAP year will undoubtedly lead to a larger applicant pool with which to measure adverse impact. I don’t think that this would be the ideal situation for most contractors.
What do you do if you want to consider some of the candidates from a closed evergreen position for future openings or new evergreen requisitions?
Needless to say, this complicates the process; however, it is not at all unusual and follows along with some of the reasons why you want to have evergreen requisitions in the first place. The best practice is to contact the job seeker and ask that they re-apply to the new evergreen requisition if they are still interested. The other, maybe not so compliant but more practical process, is to manually move those candidates into the new requisition. You may take this second approach to avoid asking the candidate to continually re-apply to new requisitions.
However, if you keep manually adding them to a new requisition without fully knowing of their interest level you may ultimately increase your applicant pool. To rectify this, if and when the evergreen requisition turns into an actual open position, you can then reach out to the applicant to determine interest. If, at that point, they indicate a lack of interest, they will be self-withdrawing from consideration and therefore, not be considered an internet applicant for AAP purposes.
Hopefully, I have grabbed your attention and you will refrain from keeping an evergreen position opened indefinitely. Other helpful tips, and reminders, include:
If you have any questions or would like to continue this discussion, do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or at 410-581-4970. To receive our compliance updates and newsletters, sign-up at www.workplace-dynamics.com.
