Running head: RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
1
Recruitment and Screening by a Nonprofit Organization for a Corporate Business:
A Cross-Sector Partnership
Kenneth Clark Crayton
Elmhurst College
Author Note
A thesis paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the Master of Arts in IndustrialOrganizational Psychology, Department of Psychology, Elmhurst College, Spring 2014. I am
grateful to Aspire of Illinois, specifically Herb Washington, Jim Kales, and Lisa Dziergas, and to
OfficeMax® (Itasca, Illinois, Executive Board). I also thank Carrie Hewitt and two anonymous
reviewers, and give special thanks to Dr. Dawn Roberts for her helpful comments on earlier
drafts.
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
2
Abstract
Cross-sector partnerships between nonprofit organizations and for-profit businesses have
proliferated in recent years. Despite apparent differences in values and priorities, both may
benefit from shared ventures that converge their respective strengths. These partnerships create
value for individuals, for the organizations involved, and for society. This paper describes a
nonprofit-corporate business partnership between Aspire of Illinois and OfficeMax® that fulfills
the different missions of the partners through the recruitment and screening of adults with
disabilities. Three industrial-organizational psychology concepts are applied to my internship
involving this collaboration: (1) job design, (2) recruitment and screening, and (3) organizational
partnerships.
Keywords: nonprofit, recruitment, collaboration, partnership, cross-sector
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
3
Recruitment and Screening by a Nonprofit Organization for a Corporate Business:
A Cross-Sector Partnership
Nonprofit organizations are different than for-profit business in a variety of ways. Key
differences revolve around the mission, finance structure, and executive management of the
organizations. Nonprofit organizations begin with a fundamental difference pertaining to their
purpose. That is, their particular societal mission sets them apart from the purpose and design of
for-profit enterprise. Understanding the mission, trying to fulfill it, and adapting to the changing
world are main characteristics of how they operate and govern themselves (Epstein & McFarlan,
2011). In contrast, for-profit businesses provide value to consumers and in the process, generate
capital for their operations and shareholders. They are subject to market forces and competitive
pressures, and must also adapt to changing environments.
Despite these differences, collaborations between nonprofit organizations and for-profit
businesses have become increasingly common over the past several years (Austin, 2007; Dees,
1998). Growing out of the corporate social responsibility movement, many businesses realized
that producing benefits for other stakeholders, such as nonprofits and those they serve, also
produced business value. Likewise, nonprofit organizations recognized the benefits of
partnering with capital-rich businesses. These cross-sector collaborations can produce greater
value for the organizations than either one could alone. However, navigating the divergent
missions, policies, and operations of the organizations can require negotiation and alignment of
priorities and interests.
The purpose of this paper is to describe my internship at a nonprofit organization, Aspire
of Illinois, and to analyze its partnership with a corporate business, OfficeMax®, within the
context of the industrial-organizational psychology research literature. I will describe the
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
4
organization, then provide an analysis of my primary internship activities, including: (1) job
design, (2) recruitment methods, and (3) organizational partnerships. I also provide
recommendations for future nonprofit-corporate collaborations.
Nonprofit Organization: Aspire of Illinois
Aspire of Illinois, headquartered in Westchester, IL, is a non-profit organization focused
on enriching the lives of people with developmental disabilities of all ages. Its mission is to
“help people with developmental disabilities to achieve their highest potential where they live,
learn, work” (Aspire of Illinois, Inc., 2014). Aspire employs about 350 people and volunteers in
50 Chicagoland locations, helping approximately 1,000 persons with disabilities each year. Its
operating revenue is generated through private donations, government grants, local community
and interest groups (e.g., the Cook County Proviso Township of Mental Health Commission),
and charitable donations. Different services provided by the organization include: Children’s
services, including therapy and professional services for their families and caregivers;
Residential housing options for adults for independent and productive support; Life skills
training and employment training; and Job rehabilitation and services. Job rehabilitation can
involve placing disabled individuals with community businesses (e.g., Walgreens®, local fire
departments, Jewel®) and employing rehabilitation counselors to train or supervise them, also
known as “supported employment.”
Industrial-Organizational Internship Activities & Practices
I interned during summer 2012 with Aspire as a Diversity and Inclusion Consultant and
continued to provide these same services as an independent consultant over the next six months.
My primary task was to help develop the organization’s capacity to function as a recruitment
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
5
agency for persons with disabilities. In this role, I would help to connect qualified disabled
individuals with corporations who wished to hire them.
I use a scientist-practitioner perspective to communicate these internship activities. I first
describe tasks or aspects of the internship, then I analyze them in the context of the relevant
research literature. Three major concepts within industrial-organizational psychology are the
focus: (1) job design, (2) recruitment methods, and (3) consultation/partnerships between
nonprofit and for-profit organizations.
Job Design
Description
I was the first Industrial-Organizational Psychology intern at Aspire, and was selected, in
part, because they desired someone who could independently create the position without formal
supervision, structure, or guidance. In other words, my first task was to design my own job. I
was provided with a problem: unemployment and underemployment of developmentally
disabled individuals. Additionally, I discovered that corporate businesses sought to employ
persons with disabilities, and one specifically, OfficeMax®, had turned to Aspire to help them
achieve this.
From this problem and potential solution, I developed goals and objectives to guide me
through the internship (see Table 1). With the overarching goal of strengthening inclusion and
diversity regarding developmental disabilities within the OfficeMax® corporation, I initially
assessed the environmental and organizational factors that were influencing the problem. Various
solutions began to emerge as I gathered information, so objectives and tasks were added
accordingly. Occasionally, new problems were uncovered in the course of task completion. For
instance, one responsibility was to develop a list of sources to identify individuals with
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
6
disabilities in each state, for the purpose of creating a database that tracked successful job
placement outcomes. This seemingly simple information-gathering task exposed idiosyncratic
practices across governmental offices and other agencies in releasing information. Thus, job
objectives and tasks were re-defined and refined throughout the duration of the internship.
Additionally, the organizational structure surrounding the intern position changed about
one month into the internship. Shortly after starting the project in June, the Director of
Partnerships contacted me for an update on my progress. Apparently he had not received as
much communication as he desired from my immediate supervisor, who was in a job position
that was responsible for community employment outreach. After discovering good progress on
the project, the director moved me to Aspire’s main headquarters, under his supervision. This
changed the line of report of the intern position. The internship closed with presentations to
corporate stakeholders on the findings of my assessment, proposed solutions, and processes put
in place to continue inclusion and diversity practices.
Analysis
The opportunity to create my own job allowed me to use what is known about job design
to construct a position that would lead to a high level of engagement, motivation, and
performance. Elements of jobs that generate high engagement include skill variety (diverse and
complex skills required), task identity (a whole and identifiable piece of work), task significance
(impact on the lives of others), autonomy (freedom/discretion in when and how to work), and
feedback (direct and clear information about the effectiveness of one’s work; Ilgen &
Hollenbeck, 1991).
Nearly all of these elements were met by the internship position. Skill variety ranged
from construction of a complex electronic database, to encouraging corporate employees to share
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
7
their perspectives on diversity, to presenting findings to corporate executives. Task identity was
built into the job by giving me a problem to solve, rather than actions to perform, and I was
responsible for the entire process, including defining the problem and implementing solutions.
Further, task significance in this job was extremely high and tangible, as is true for many
nonprofit organizations. I was helping unemployed persons with developmental disabilities to
find employment across the nation.
The final two elements of the job design, autonomy and feedback, encompass interactions
of a particular job to other positions within an organization, rather than focus solely on
responsibilities or tasks of the particular job. Autonomy and feedback were adequate, but may
have been improved. I had freedom and discretion in how I was to achieve tasks, which made
the position one that was very high in autonomy. However, this high autonomy also lessened the
feedback I received.
Changing the line of report of the internship position helped to improve feedback
frequency. I found corrections and suggestions from the Director of Partnerships to be especially
helpful and critical to my efforts. Gregory, Levey, and Jeffers (2008) asserted that informal and
continuous feedback is one of the most important and powerful ways to manage performance.
Feedback immediately following an effective or substandard performance helps employees to
adjust their behaviors rapidly, so they can perform more efficient and effective work.
In addition to formal feedback improvement, the Director of Partnerships action to move
the location of my internship activities to his unit aided more informal feedback. Casual
conversations regarding feedback are significantly related to higher levels of performance and
engagement (Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes, 2002). Although this position was not team-based,
informal feedback discussions also have been reported to be one of the top-five factors
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
8
associated with high performing teams (Saks, 2002). Praise from the OfficeMax® corporate
director at my final presentation, and an additional monetary bonus, also were a strong rewards
and made me want to continue working with them in a consulting role. Psychological research
has noted the importance of rewards to improve motivation and strengthen performance
(Eisenberger and Cameron, 1996). In sum, all of these job design elements allowed me to
regulate my own behavior and served to keep my motivation and performance at a high level.
Self-regulation of work behavior also includes goal-setting and goal-striving. Goalsetting is defined as the intentional act of establishing specific objectives that require necessary
actions in order to accomplish them (Locke & Latham, 2004), whereas goal-striving refers to
executing behaviors that promote attainment of goals, and avoiding distraction/disruption (Mann,
deRidder, & Fujita, 2013). Traditionally, goal-setting is thought to be most effective when goals
are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-targeted (SMART). However, more
recent research suggests that the “realistic” component may not be necessary, and that
unreasonably high or unattainable goals may actually lead to increased performance (Mann et al.,
2013).
My list of objectives for fulfilling my internship project were achievable and realistic, but
were not written as specific, measurable behaviors or outcomes, and were only loosely timetargeted (see Table 1). They were to be completed by the end of the internship, but there were
no specific intermediate deadlines. Also missing from my job design was a formal
accountability loop for feedback before the end of the project. For example, when a larger
number of small, proximal goals are set, workers receive feedback sooner and are better able to
adjust their strategies of goal striving (Locke & Latham, 2004). Of course, this accountability
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
9
format may oppose high levels of autonomy in the job. One solution to this would be to allow
self-set goals to guide the accountability feedback loop, or to suggest self-set time frames.
Overall, my experience in crafting my own internship allowed me to use principles of
strong job design and goal-setting to produce the best outcome. Nearly all elements necessary
for high performance and motivation were present, including skill variety, task identity, task
significance, and autonomy. However, during the earliest phase of the internship, feedback was
minimal. Earlier efforts may have been improved with a greater number of smaller, more
specific goals within self-set time frames, to allow for feedback. This issue was improved during
the course of the position, by restructuring lines of report, and altering feedback frequency.
Recruitment and Screening
One of Aspire’s programs is supported employment for persons with developmental
disabilities. OfficeMax®1, an American retail office supplies retailer, approached Aspire
because they wished to hire more workers with developmental disabilities for jobs in their 24
distribution centers across the country. Despite their desire, they found identification of potential
workers with disabilities to be difficult.
No publicly-accessible list of individuals with developmental disabilities exists in the
United States. Additionally, even if such a list existed, the wide range of capacities for work
would necessitate a massive screening effort. Thus, the most efficient process of identifying
potential workers may be through agencies and organizations that provide supported
employment or job rehabilitation services to persons with developmental disabilities, hereafter
referred to as vocational rehabilitation organizations (VRs). They already have conducted initial
1
OfficeMax® merged with Office Depot, Inc. (NYSE: ODP) in November 2013. The 3 rd largest online retailer in
North America, they have $17 billion in annual sales, and employ 66,000 persons worldwide. They serve
consumers and businesses in 59 countries with more than 2,200 retail stores.
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
10
screening for employment suitability/capability of any kind, and are able to provide training and
supervision when indicated.
OfficeMax® had previously used Aspire to provide supported employment services for
persons who happen to have various developmental disabilities. OfficeMax® recognized
Aspire’s expertise and experience, and contracted with them to recruit additional persons for
their Itasca, IL distribution center, before my internship began. Pleased with this work for the
local distribution center, OfficeMax® entered into a larger contract with Aspire to replicate its
success for the remaining 24 distribution centers throughout the nation.
Description
The primary task of my internship was to help Aspire fulfill their contract with
OfficeMax® by improving the external recruitment process of individuals with developmental
disabilities. My assignment was to discover new, untapped VRs that could provide OfficeMax®
with desirable employees, so I essentially served as an external recruiting agency. However, I
would be recruiting through ‘agents’ for potential employees, the VRs, rather than the applicants
themselves. I created and developed a database of organizations across the country that provided
supported employment, or that engaged in other job rehabilitation services to persons with
developmental disabilities.
I developed a recruiting process by first finding VRs in each of the 24 states where an
OfficeMax® distribution center was located. I then cold-called the VR providers to inform them
of my purpose and to collect preliminary information about their organization and their potential
applicants (i.e., pre-screening). I scripted my phone calls with pre-screening questions I created
to understand VRs’ potential to provide applicants for OfficeMax®: (1) I introduced myself and
briefly stated my reason for calling. (2) I then asked if they were willing to talk with me about
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
11
the individuals for whom they provided vocational rehabilitation, including their qualifications
and interests. (3) Then, I briefly explained the hiring program and processes, jobs, wage range,
and information about OfficeMax®’s diversity and inclusion initiative. (4) I asked the VR
providers a series of questions relevant to the recruitment process (see Table 2), which I then
assembled in a spreadsheet. (5) Afterwards, I allowed time to answer any questions the VR
providers may have had, and briefly explained the next steps of the applicant process.
Approximately 120 VRs were contacted, in total.
Information gathered from the VRs included information about the agency (e.g.,
accreditations, staff), geographic information (e.g., proximity to distribution center), placement
information (e.g., number of workers placed per year), experience with corporate placements,
and any placement or retention ratios calculated by the organization. A majority of individuals
who were aided by the VRs had a disability of autism. This information was contained in a
spreadsheet and I additionally calculated these placement and retention ratios, from the raw data
provided. I also created a 4-point rating system, based on hypothesized relative importance of
particular data, for OfficeMax® to use when qualifying providers. This way, OfficeMax®
recruiters could prioritize their contacts, once they were ready to begin recruiting applicants.
Analysis
The process of generating a pool of qualified applicants for organizational jobs is known
as recruiting. It is all about finding qualified applicants, and doing that often requires much more
than just running an ad online. Recruitment is the process by which an organization attracts
qualified workers. Although most jobs are filled by persons already employed within an
organization, via the process of internal recruitment (Ployhart, Schneider, & Schmitt, 2006), the
Aspire-OfficeMax® partnership was explicitly focused on external recruitment. External
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
12
recruitment involves attracting new applicants to the organization, screening them for
qualifications, selecting and extending job offers, and securing the applicant as an employee.
Both organizations and employees are trying to appear attractive to one another, and both make
decisions based on information they receive in the recruiting process.
External recruitment. The simplest form of external recruitment occurs between two
parties, the employer and the applicant. However, this form has additional elements in its chain
(see Figure 1). Recruiting agencies sometimes are engaged by the organization to conduct the
preliminary steps of attracting and screening applicants. Similarly, sometimes a person or
agency acts for the benefit of the applicant, taking the role of ‘agent.’ The Aspire-OfficeMax®
partnership recruitment process has both of these intermediaries. OfficeMax® wished to attract
more applicants with developmental disabilities, and Aspire’s role was to facilitate this by
identifying all possible ‘agents’ for applicants. Aspire acted as a recruiting agency in this regard,
although its role was temporary, and was set up to generate information that could be used by
OfficeMax® HR employees for future recruiting. The ‘agents’ representing applicants with
developmental disabilities were the vocational rehabilitation agencies. Although agents typically
are paid for by the individuals they represent (e.g., applicants), in this case the vocational
rehabilitation agencies were most often paid for by state and federal funding programs, and
occasionally private insurance organizations.
A comprehensive model of the recruitment process was offered by Breaugh (2008; see
Figure 2). This model can be applied to the Aspire-OfficeMax® partnership, although the tasks
involved in the process are split between four entities: the applicant, a VR, Aspire, and
OfficeMax®. The first step in the process of recruitment is to determine recruitment objectives,
including the number of positions, type of applicants sought (including abilities, experience,
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
13
diversity), and the time frame for filling positions. These objectives may be informed by data
on previous new hires, including their job performance and satisfaction, and retention rate. In
this instance, objectives were developed by OfficeMax®, and if known, were not shared with
Aspire. However, one objective, hiring for diversity in the form of disability, was the primary
focus of the partnership.
A second step in the recruitment process, strategy development, also would be performed
by the employer. In this step, decisions are made about whom to recruit, where to recruit, the
message to communicate, and how to reach targeted individuals. This particular step is where
OfficeMax® had turned to Aspire for help. They knew they wanted to target applicants with
developmental disabilities, but needed Aspire’s help to determine where to recruit and how to
reach targeted individuals. This internship involved gathering information about potential
sources for such applicants.
Recruitment activities, the third step in the model addresses the methods used for
recruitment (including interviewing or screening), recruiter behaviors, information conveyed,
and extension of an offer, and involved most of the tasks in the Aspire-OfficeMax® partnership.
A final step in the recruitment process model is the input of job applicant factors, including their
interest in the position, their fit with the job or organization, and their expectation. Aspire
conveyed this briefly during contact with the VRs, but these VRs will be serving an important
function in making the position attractive to their clients.
Recruitment research is applicable to the model and has identified factors that appear to
influence recruitment. These include realistic job previews (RJPs), recruiter behaviors, and
recruitment methods, the “three Rs” (Breaugh, 2008). The first of these three, RJPs, tend to aid
recruitment by adjusting the expectations of new hires, and improving person-job/organization
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
14
fit. This recruiting component is the domain of OfficeMax®, and would occur after applicants
have been screened. Given the role of VRs, who serve as gateways for applicants, OfficeMax®
may wish to consider bringing in VR representatives for job site visits and RJPs. These previews
may aid them in managing applicant interest and expectations. In other words, OfficeMax® may
find qualified applicants with the best fit for the job and organization, and applicants who hold
realistic expectations by agents for applicants.
The second recruiting influence, recruiter behaviors, appear to have the greatest effect if
the recruiter is personable, trustworthy, and informative (Breaugh, 2008). I did not directly
communicate with applicants during my internship. Rather, I indirectly contacted applicants via
their ‘agents,’ the VRs, so this factor may carry less influence from Aspire. Another recruiter
behavior that demonstrates a strong effect on recruitment success is recruitment by job
incumbents. OfficeMax® could consider using filmed messages or supplementary contacts by
persons already holding the type of job to be filled.
The third recruiting factor, recruiting methods, was the focus of my job tasks.
OfficeMax® already had decided that they wanted target individuals with disabilities for
recruitment, so I helped them to find the best method to do so. Once the initial decision to target
applicants through VRs was made, the remainder of my tasks involved data collection from
them. Other routes that may be useful for targeted recruitment include support groups or
websites for family members. Feedback in the form of new hire employee performance or
turnover will help to identify the best recruitment methods. Likewise, data from existing hires
will address the effectiveness of screening already conducted by the VRs. Although additional
screens may be needed, it may be expensive or biased without metrics from existing hires to
guide those decisions (Cascio, 1998).
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
15
Targeted recruitment of persons with disabilities. The special nature of the targeted
population for applicants warrants additional consideration. Although targeted recruitment is
hailed as important, recent reviews highlight the lack of research on its general effectiveness
(Breaugh, 2008; Ployhart et al., 2006). Targeting individuals with developmental disabilities
restricts available methods, and narrows the number of applicants dramatically. However,
research on workers with disabilities indicates successful recruitment is possible. Further,
targeted recruitment conveys to applicants with particular characteristics that the employer
values and is interested in hiring them.
Approximately half of all private sector employers reported that they proactively recruit
persons with disabilities of any kind (Bruyère, Erickson, & VanLooy, 2000). This percentage
likely has risen since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, which prohibits
disability discrimination. However, several large studies show that persons with any workplace
disability (including visual/hearing impairment) are only about a third as likely to be employed
as persons without such a disability (Bruyere et al., 2000; Ren, Paetzold, & Colella, 2008).
They also are approximately twice as likely to be employed part-time (vs. full-time), are more
likely to work in lower paid positions such as production, transportation, and materials moving,
and are less likely to work in management or professional occupations than those with no
disability (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). Discrimination against persons with disabilities
occurs (McMahon et al., 2008).
An understanding of issues surrounding employment of disabled workers is needed to
evaluate the purpose of this collaboration, and to generate ideas for improvements. Employers’
decisions about workers with disabilities do not appear to differ widely from those of workers
without disabilities, in self-reported surveys. Graffam et al. (2002) surveyed employers
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
16
regarding the importance of several factors on their decisions to hire persons with disabilities.
Individual factors such as grooming/hygiene and work-performance factors were rated highest.
Management and cost factors were of moderate importance, and social factors were least
important. Another large survey of over 800 employers found that the most difficult change to
make regarding workers with disabilities is coworker or supervisor attitudes, rather than
accommodations, additional training, supervision, or job restructuring (Bruyere et al, 2000).
Less is known regarding workers with developmental disabilities, specifically. Persons
with developmental disabilities are more likely to be employed in sheltered workshops or in
facility-based employment, than with private or public employers (Winsor & Butterworth, 2008).
Work participation by persons with mild intellectual disabilities was predicted by living
independently or with parents (vs. a residential facility) though no other social or personal
factors predicted work participation (Holwerda et al., 2013; Martorell, Gutierrez-Recacha,
Pereda, Ayuso-Mateos, 2008). Persons are unable to estimate accurately the skills of persons
with intellectual disabilities without informed evaluation (Burge, Ouellette-Kuntz, & Lysaght;
2007), so it is not surprising that managers or employers are uncertain. I found this research
helpful in understanding challenges that people with disabilities commonly face while actively
engaging in the job search process.
The VRs identified for this partnership served more persons with autism, compared to
other developmental disabilities. Autism (or autistic spectrum disorder) is a diagnosis carried by
approximately 16% of persons in the US (CDC, 2014). These disabilities involve varying
degrees of social and communication deficits, and lie on a spectrum of severity, with
approximately half of these persons exhibiting average or above intelligence (CDC, 2014).
Individuals with this designation are qualified for many jobs, and may only need minor or
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
17
temporary accommodations to perform adequately (Strickland, Coles, & Southern, 2013;
Wehman et al., 2014). For example, most persons will do best with a consistent, organized,
structured schedule and set of job responsibilities (Hagner & Cooney, 2005). Flexible
leadership is another relatively minor accommodation. Transformational leadership, with
emotion-tinged communication and social exchanges, may not be most effective with persons
with this disability (Parr, Hunter, & Ligon, 2013).
Recruiting efforts also may consider the support systems surrounding applicants with
disabilities. Family members of persons with developmental disabilities reported that they
desired more short-term training opportunities and internships. They also preferred more options
for jobs, more family involvement, and greater consideration of safety and transportation
accessibility (Timmons, Hall, Bose, Wolfe, & Winsor, 2011). These family issues highlight a
potential addition to recruitment methods. Transportation accessibility and family involvement
in recruitment and hiring may aid hiring efforts of employers.
Overall, recruitment and screening research can inform the recruitment efforts of
OfficeMax®, especially when combined with consideration of issues particular to the targeted
applicant group. For instance, VR staff and family members may be included in part of the
recruitment efforts, through job site visits or RJPs, or special transportation accommodations.
Recruitment tasks are more fragmented among the different entities in the chain of the AspireOfficeMax® partnership, and thus may suffer from lack of ownership of particular tasks.
Additionally, without data from previous recruiting efforts or current employees with
developmental disabilities, decisions to improve recruiting are merely hypothetical.
Nonprofit-Corporate Partnerships
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
18
A unique characteristic of my internship was its inception in the partnership of a
nonprofit organization, Aspire of Illinois, and a for-profit corporation, OfficeMax®. I describe
and analyze this partnership within a framework of the value created by the nonprofit /for-profit
collaboration.
Description
Prior to my internship, Aspire of Illinois had worked with disabled individuals in
supported employment programs at the OfficeMax® distribution center in Illinois. The
arrangement worked well, and OfficeMax® wished to replicate this success at its 24 distribution
centers around the country. Aspire of Illinois provides supported employment services only in
Illinois, but OfficeMax® wanted them to identify potential sources of supported employment
services in other states, to staff their other distribution centers. Although I did not see its terms,
OfficeMax® and Aspire entered into a contract or memorandum of understanding. OfficeMax®
would pay Aspire of Illinois a specified amount of money for locating vocational rehabilitation
(VR) sources who supported employment of individuals with disabilities in for supportive
employment in other states. Aspire would then turn over a list of these sources to OfficeMax®
so they could contact these agencies directly, in the future, to hire workers.
I was hired specifically to generate this list of VRs for OfficeMax®. With the exception
of the first month, I worked under the supervision of Aspire’s Director of Partnerships, at their
headquarters in Westchester, IL. I had no contact with anyone at OfficeMax® at any time during
the internship. However, at the end of my internship, Aspire wished to partner with another
large corporation, Walgreens, and provide them with similar services. I attended a pitch meeting
at Walgreens headquarters with Aspire’s CEO/President and Director of Partnerships to present a
plan to some of their executives. A partnership emerged from this meeting, and Aspire and
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
19
Walgreens developed a contract and multi-phase plan that is ongoing. I served in a Diversity and
Inclusion Consultant role in the beginning stages of that new partnership.
Analysis
Collaborations between business and public/nonprofit organizations have proliferated
over the past 15-20 years. An extension of corporate social responsibility, many businesses
began partnering with nonprofit organizations when they realized that producing benefits for
other stakeholders also produced business value. Likewise, nonprofit organizations recognized
the advantages of associations with businesses (Dees, 1998). Approximately 80-90% of chief
business executives and a similar number of nonprofit heads who were surveyed agreed that
these collaborations were important (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a).
Cross-sector partnerships can be analyzed and understood in a number of ways. These
partnerships involve a commitment by an organization to work with another organization from a
different economic sector. That commitment typically includes resources such as time, effort,
expertise, services, or money on the part of both partners. Such partnerships have been variously
described as “the vehicle of choice for both businesses and nonprofits to create more value
working together than they could by working alone” (p. 734, Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a) and as
“new emergent institutions that exist as flexible forms of organizing with little or no formal legal
status, and demonstrate virtual structures across organizational boundaries and countries” (p.
424, Seitanidi & Crane, 2009). Despite their merit, these collaborations can be complicated by
different organizational cultures, interests, and strategies (Partnership Resource Centre, 2012;
Schiller & Crane, 2013).
Cross-sector partnership framework. Reflecting both the surge in the number of these
partnerships and their relatively amorphous state, several models have been forwarded to
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
20
describe and understand them. A majority of the models focus on the lifecycle or evolution of
the collaboration over time. Several authors also offer considerations for selecting
organizational partners and initiating partnerships (e.g., Austin, 2007; Berger, Cunningham, &
Drumwright, 2004; Jamali & Keshishian, 2009; Kanter, 1999; Schiller; Simpson, Lefroy, &
Tsarenko, 2011).
One particularly recent and comprehensive model was formulated by Austin and
Seitanidi (2012a, 2012b). Their framework integrates models previously forwarded by Austin
(2000a, 2000b, 2007), Seitanidi (Seitanidi & Crane, 2009), and others (e.g., Dees, 1998; Jamali
& Keshishian, 2009), and is made up of the Collaboration Continuum and the Collaboration
Value Creation model (see Table 4). The continuum tracks the four stages of cross-sector
relationships, according to depth and comprehensiveness of the collaboration. The first,
philanthropic stage involves one organization providing a charitable donation of resources to a
recipient, most often a unilateral transfer of resources from the business to the nonprofit. For
example, OfficeMax® may donate a monetary gift to Aspire. The second, transactional stage
involves an exchange of resources, such as sponsorship of a fundraising event, where the
business receives publicity by its association with a charitable cause, or an OfficeMax®
employee volunteering program aids Aspire residential homes. The third phase, integrative,
involves shared aspects of mission, strategy, talent, or operations, and the fourth phase,
transformative, involves a synergistic, societal-level benefit (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a, 2012b).
The OfficeMax®-Aspire partnership appears to sit on the transactional point of the
collaboration continuum. They are exchanging resources and providing value to one another.
Table 3 presents this value in the form of financial, social, and organizational benefits for
OfficeMax® and Aspire, and for other important stakeholders in this activity, namely VRs in
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
21
other states identified during my internship, and the individuals with developmental disabilities
whom they serve. However, there have been no formal collaborative agreements other than the
contract for the specific services from my internship, and there is little to no shared mission,
strategy, or talent. In fact, the contracted work done by Aspire aided OfficeMax®’s
relationships with nonprofit VR organizations in other states. Because Aspire is located only in
Illinois, there is no conflict of interest, but some of these potential competitors do perform
services in Illinois (e.g., Easter Seals and Goodwill Industries). In short, Aspire helped
OfficeMax® develop partnerships with its nonprofit competitors, organizations who seek
funding from the same sources as Aspire.
Austin & Seitanidi (2012a) propose that cross-sector collaborations like AspireOfficeMax® happen in order to create value. Their Collaborative Value Creation model provides
a framework for examining the value obtained by both Aspire and OfficeMax® in their
partnership (see Table 4). Sources and types of value may be rated on a scale that ranges from
value created only by/for a sole organization to value that is co-created by/for both organizations.
Sources of value include resource complementarity, resource nature, resource directionality, and
linked interests.
One source of value created through the partnership pertains to both organizations
obtaining access to the unique resources that each can “exchange collaboratively, also referred to
as resource complementarity” (p. 729, Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a). Aspire has both direct and
indirect contact with a work-ready community of individuals who happen to have development
disabilities and whose skill strengths are increasingly recognized (Wang, March 27, 2014). This
resource would help OfficeMax® solve its problem of finding such qualified candidates for its
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
22
diversity and inclusion hiring initiative. The financial capital and contract revenue generated by a
large corporation like OfficeMax® serves as a pecuniary solution to Aspire’s funding needs.
A second source of value pertains to the unique resources each partner contributes to the
other within the collaboration. These resources may have a generic (i.e., could be provided by
many organizations) or organization-specific (i.e., unique to the partner organization) value.
Austin and Seitanidi (2012a) describe this as the resource nature of the value. Although the
vocational rehabilitation services that Aspire provides to adults for job-readiness is not
characteristic of more than a handful of other nonprofit agencies statewide, it is similar to other
job-readiness and vocational rehabilitation and community employment programs offered by
competitors (VRs). Thus, it is only moderately organization-specific.
As a way for OfficeMax® to increase its image as a socially conscious and responsible
corporation, it may become associated with Aspire’s reputation for community outreach with
persons of disabilities. Furthermore, by OfficeMax® partnering with Aspire, the corporation
could attempt to seek financial gains by transferring heighted social conscience and morality into
consumer profits. That is, OfficeMax® can market its Aspire partnership and gain more
consumer attention by appealing as a “good” organization (Heller, 2008). This also helps the
Fortune 500 company to stay competitive among other like-minded companies that play into
socially responsible capitalism (Austin, 2000). This benefit of enhanced positive corporate
image and reputation is not specific, and could be fulfilled by any charitable nonprofit with a
social mission (e.g., Kessler Foundation, March 7, 2014). However, employment of adults with
developmental disabilities indicates a depth of commitment that increases specificity. Note that
despite the solely philanthropic appearance of hiring disabled workers, OfficeMax® receives a
$2500-$9600 tax credit, per worker, per year, as part of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
23
program (United States Department of Labor, 2014). Additional organization-specific resources
provided by Aspire include the knowledge of methods to identify VRs across the country, the
reason OfficeMax® initially contracted with Aspire. Finally, in terms of Aspire’s benefits from
the partnership, the financial support OfficeMax® provided is generic.
The third source of value, resource directionality, refers to the balance of how resources
provided by each organization are deployed within the collaboration. Examining the AspireOfficeMax® partnership, it appears that Aspire provided most of inputs within the exchange.
Aspire provided consultative services and knowledge, directly placed employees into
OfficeMax’s® distribution center (Itasca, IL), indirectly recruited employees by functioning as
an external recruitment agency for OfficeMax’s® 24 nationwide distribution centers, and
advised the corporation regarding concerns pertaining to diversity and inclusion employment,
such as strategy and training. These activities, in comparison to OfficeMax® paying Aspire for
contract services, highlight a more unilateral exchange, where one partner contributes more of its
resources to the greater benefit of the receiving partner (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a).
Still, it remains apparent that both organizational partners share an underlying linked
interest that brings them together, the fourth source of value in the Collaborative Value Creation
model. A linked interest can be any shared, agreed-upon goal that serves to motivate both parties
to join forces by working together collaboratively. A clear understanding of how the other
partner views value is emphasized as a key to productive and successful cross-sector
collaboration. The self-interests of both partners may be acknowledged, respected, and satisfied
(Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a). The task of increasing the employment of qualified, work-ready
individuals with disabilities into safe and productive work environments united the Aspire-
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
24
OfficeMax® cross-sector partnership. Their goals and interests were aligned through the shared
focus on supported community employment of persons with developmental disabilities.
The Collaborative Value Creation model additionally addresses types of value, including
associational, transferred resource, interaction, synergistic, and innovation. Nearly all of these
types are at a rudimentary level in the Aspire-OfficeMax partnership, except for the benefit of
having associational branding with one another (see Table 4). For instance, much of the value
provided is depreciable rather than renewable. Aspire will not need to generate additional lists of
VRs across the country. Further, resource exchange required little interaction between
organizations, and I had no contact with any OfficeMax® representatives during my internship.
In terms of synergistic value, following my internship, OfficeMax® received funding from the
Kessler Foundation to further develop training programs in its distribution centers in four states,
including Illinois (Kessler Foundation, March 7, 2014). However, this may perhaps be better
construed as an additional benefit to OfficeMax® rather than a synergistic expansion, because
Aspire did not receive any funding or indirect costs from the grant. Finally, there were very few
opportunities for innovation in the partnership.
Overall, using the Collaborative Value Creation framework, the cross-sector partnership
between Aspire and OfficeMax® was limited and transactional. More tangible and intangible
rewards of the collaboration appeared to go to the business partner, compared to the nonprofit
partner, a common finding in such partnerships (Schiller & Almog-Bar, 2013). Despite aligned
interests and goals, the major value to the nonprofit partner, Aspire, was in the form of payment
for its creation of a database of VRs nationwide. This phase of the partnership naturally came to
end, and Aspire helped with a grant proposal to the Kessler Foundation that resulted in funding
to OfficeMax®. The funding will be used to develop more training and support mechanisms in
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
25
the OfficeMax® distribution centers, which will, in turn, help Aspire and other VRs carry out
their missions. In sum, the Aspire-OfficeMax® cross-sector partnership was a short-term,
limited partnership that does not seen to have created extensive or mutual value for both partners.
Future partnership considerations. The primary goal of cross-sector partnerships is to
produce additional value for both partners. Nonprofits such as Aspire may improve the benefits
they receive from such partnerships, and thus aid their social mission, by considering carefully
the ways they may gain value from future collaborations. At the conclusion of my internship,
Aspire entered into a more formal partnership with another large corporation, Walgreens. My
internship ended before being able to get involved with this step. Formalizing procedures,
establishing leadership positions, and designing internal protocols and other agreements were left
for Aspire and Walgreens to later determine. These partners may improve their role in a
collaborative relationship, in a number of ways.
A preliminary way to ascertain the value of a particular partnership is for a nonprofit to
consider all possible benefits (and costs) to itself and to its potential corporate business partner.
Several authors have compiled lists of potential benefits and costs from partnerships, which are
summarized in Table 5 (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012b; Crane, 2000; Dees, 1998; Heller, 2008;
Schilling & Almog-Bar, 2013; Simpson, Lefroy, & Tsarenko, 2011). Thoughtful discussion
about potential benefits in the context of an organization’s more comprehensive strategic plan
may generate new ideas about ways a partnership could provide value to both partners and may
prevent surprising difficulties that could arise.
Multiple concerns over value of a partnership are consolidated in a “partnership test”
generated by Austin and Seitanidi (2012a). They offer two overarching criteria: Accountability
(external environment) and Institutionalization (internal environment). The former concerns
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
26
accountability mechanisms in place for all social responsibilities and all stakeholders to which
the organization needs to be accountable, throughout all phases of the partnership. The latter
includes institutionalization of the relationship, through analyses of critical situations and their
impact on the partnership, and audits of members and nonmembers of the partnership team. In
sum, systematic and informed decision-making must occur before entering into nonprofitbusiness partnerships.
Conclusions & Recommendations
Although my internship ended before seeing the final outcomes, I suggest
recommendations for non-profit organizational leaders regarding partnering and collaborating
with the for-profit, business sector. I also summarize my development as a result of the
internship, and offer suggestions for future interns.
Recommendations for Nonprofit Organizations
Primary recommendations relate to a conscious, strategic, and openly-shared plan for
collaboration with a for-profit business. Have strong internal approaches already developed,
including the definition and terms and conditions of the partnership collaborative to ensure an
accurate understanding of cross-sector goals. Opportunities for collaboration can be analyzed in
terms of potential benefits, challenges, and drawbacks to both parties. Management teams and
staff should have a uniformed understanding of defining all aspects of the visionary direction,
strategic implementation, timeline of deliverables, information, fiscal responsibility, facilities
and resources involved, and other exchanges that occur within the partnership.
Ongoing assessment and evaluation of the partnership also are advisable, so that
problems or changes to value can be modified quickly. Have a way to measure how successful
each stage of the partnership was at meeting specified goals. The effectiveness of the
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
27
collaborative strategic implementation and other programs can be assessed and evaluated in
terms of both process and outcomes. As a jointly managed partnership, all involved
organizations can develop an evaluation system and share what about the partnership is working
well, and what is not.
Finally, a pre-existing strong and collaborative management style will model a strong
external collaboration. Have active and open communication with team members involved in
each stage of the collaboration. Here, everyone from top executive support to hard-working
interns benefit from established communication expectations. Open communication safeguards
can be established to protect job security for involved members that offer unpopular, and perhaps
unfavorable, opinions, ideas, suggestions, feedback, etc., that challenge the status quo. Job
descriptions for staff assignments should agree with the objectives and purpose of the partnership
initiative, and reasonably describe the responsibilities of each organization involved.
Skills Developed and Lessons Learned
This internship provided invaluable exposure to cross-sector collaboration. I learned that
similar issues of collaboration occur at an individual level, with collaboration between intern,
graduate program, and sponsoring organization. The role of intern is not identical to that of a
student, when one is given clearly specified tasks to complete, and one expects little deviation
from a syllabus. Each party in a collaboration has a different perspective, different needs, and
different values, and communication of these differences is necessary. The intern must keep in
mind his/her goals, interests, and constraints, and work in accordance with these, without
expecting the organization or academic program to forgo their own goals, interests, and
constraints. At the same time, just as in cross-sector partnerships, power differences exist, and
may override full autonomy.
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
28
Related to the issue of the intern advocating and negotiating on behalf of his/her interests,
is the attitude and focus of the internship. Taking initiative and engaging deeply in the
experience are much more important in the internship context than in coursework, and can make
an unstructured internship into a superior development program. I learned that I needed to be
responsible for my own job design, task completion, and general experience. Finally, I also
developed specific skills that will be valuable in recruitment processes. For instance, cold
calling, prescreening and selection, and understanding of applicant needs will have business
applications.
Suggestions for Future Interns
My advice to future Elmhurst I-O PSY interns follows from the lessons I learned. Be an
advocate for your own experience. For instance, ask for an internship mentor early on in the
process. Be open to experiences that may not necessarily fit one’s preconceived idea of an
‘ideal’ internship. An unstructured, open-ended experience can allow a motivated individual to
gain innumerable skills. If, on the other hand, one performs better in highly structured situations,
without ambiguity, a longer-standing, well-formed internship may be better. Overall, ask others
for honest assessments of what one needs to learn or experience most. Being open to hearing
one’s characteristics can lead to the most growth and improvement.
I also recommend achieving clarity early in the process about internship paper/thesis
guidelines and expectations. If that information is contained in program documents, be sure to
examine them ahead of time, so one isn’t trying to assemble everything immediately before they
are needed.
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
29
Develop relationships with others in your program and in your organizational placement.
Becoming acquainted with the other organizational members will help to understand the
perspectives of different members of the partnership. It also will help to build strong networks.
Finally, develop flexibility and resilience when things don’t go as planned. Anticipate
that last minute changes will occur, and prepare for being unprepared for or disliking the
changes. Adaptation will allow one to thrive and flourish.
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
30
References
Aspire of Illinois, Inc. (2014). Retrieved from www.aspireofillinois.or/about-us/index.html.
Austin, J.E. (2000a). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly 2000; 29(1); s69-s97. doi: 10.1177/089976400773746346
Austin, J. E. (2000b). The collaboration challenge: How non-profits and businesses succeed
through strategic alliances. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Austin, J. E. (2007). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(69), 69-97. doi: 10.1177/089976400773746346
Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012a). Collaborative Value Creation A Review of Partnering
Between Nonprofits and Businesses: Part I. Value Creation Spectrum and Collaboration
Stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726-758. doi: 10.1177/
0899764012450777
Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012b). Collaborative Value Creation A Review of Partnering
Between Nonprofits and Businesses. Part 2: Partnership Processes and Outcomes.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 929-968. doi: 10.1177/
0899764012454685
Berger, I., P., Cunningham, X., & Drumwright, M. (2004). Social alliances: Company/nonprofit
collaboration. California Management Review 47(1), 58–90.
Breaugh, J. A. (2008). Employee recruitment: Current knowledge and important areas for future
research. Human Resource Management Review, 18(3), 103-118. doi:10.1016/
j.hrmr.2008.07.003
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
31
Bruyère, S., Erickson, W., & VanLooy, S. (2000). HR’s role in managing disability in the
workplace. Employment Relations Today, Autumn, 47-66. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/119
Burge, P., Ouellette-Kuntz, H., & Lysaght, R. (2007). Public views on employment of people
with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 26(1), 29-37.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013). Persons with a disability: Labor force characteristics—2012.
USDL-13-1141. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf
Cascio, W. F. (1998). Applied psychology in human resource management. (5 ed). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Centers for Disease Control. (2014). Autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years —
Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2010.
MMWR 2014:63(2):1-13. ISSN 1546-0738.
Crane, A. (2000). Culture clash and mediation: Exploring the cultural dynamics of business-ngo
collaboration. In B. Jem (Ed.), Terms for endearment: Business, NGOs and sustainable
development. (pp. 163-77). Retrieved from http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com/
content/pdfs/terms_crane.pdf
Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76, 54-69.
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth? . Journal of the
American Psychological Association, 51, 1153-1166.. Retrieved April 28, 2014, from
http://jad.sagepub.com/content/2/1/55.3.full.pdf+html
Epstein, M. J., & McFarlan, F. W. (2011). Nonprofit vs. for-profit boards: Critical differences.
Strategic Finance, 28-35. Retrieved from http://www.imanet.org/PDFs/Public/SF/
2011_03/03_2011_epstein.pdf
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
32
Graffam, J., Shinkfield, A., Smith, K., & Polzin, U. (2002). Factors that influence employer
decisions in hiring and retaining an employee with a disability. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 17(3), 175-181.
Gregory, J. B., Levy, P. E., & Jeffers, M. (2008). Development of a model of the feedback
process within executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 60(1), 42-56. doi: 10.1037/1065-9293.60.1.42
Hagner, D., & Cooney, B. F. (2005). “I do that for everybody”: Supervising employees with
autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(2), 91-97. doi:
10.1177/10883576050200020501
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Heller, N. A. (2008). The influence of reputation and sector on perception of brand alliances of
nonprofit organizations. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 20(1), 15-36.
Holwerda, A., van der Klink, J. L., de Boer, M. R., Groothoff, J. W., & Brouwer, S. (2013).
Predictors of work participation of young adults with mild intellectual disabilities.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(6), 1982-1990. doi:10.1016/
j.ridd.2013.03.018
Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles. Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology, 2, 165-207. Retrieved from
http://tamuweb.tamu.edu/faculty/bergman/ilgen1991.pdf
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
33
Isbell, M. G. (2012). The role of boundary spanners as the inter-organizational link in nonprofit
collaborating. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(1), 159-65. Retrieved from
http://www.orgcomm.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/isbell-boundary-spanners.pdf
Jamali, D., & Keshishian, T. (2009). Uneasy alliances: Lessons learned from partnerships
between businesses and NGOs in the context of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(2),
277-295. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9708-1
Kanter, R. M. (1999). From spare change to real change: The social sector as beta site for
business innovation. Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 122-132.
Kessler Foundation (March 7, 2014). Employment numbers for people with disabilities continue
to decline in February. Retrieved from http://finance.yahoo.com/news/employmentnumbers-people-disabilities-continue-154311798.html
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six
recommendations for the twenty-first century. The Academy Of Management Review,
29(3), 388-403. doi:10.2307/20159050
Mann, T., de Ridder, D., & Fujita, K. (2013). Self-regulation of health behavior: Social
psychological approaches to goal setting and goal striving. Health Psychology, 32(5),
487-498. doi:10.1037/a0028533
Martorell, A. A., Gutierrez-Recacha, P. P., Pereda, A. A., & Ayuso-Mateos, J. L. (2008).
Identification of personal factors that determine work outcome for adults with intellectual
disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52(12), 1091-1101.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01098.x
McMahon, B. T., Rumrill, P. R., Roessler, R., Hurley, J. E., West, S. L., Chan, F., & Carlson, L.
(2008). Hiring discrimination against people with disabilities under the ADA:
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
34
Characteristics of employers. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 18(2), 112-121.
doi:10.1007/s10926-008-9134-3
Palakshappa, N., Bulmer, S., Eweje, G., & Kitchen, P. (2010). Integrated strategic partnerships
between business and not-for-profit organizations: A case study from New Zealand.
Journal of Marketing Communications, 16(4), 255-68. doi:10.1080/13527260903112255.
Parr, A. D., Hunter, S. T., & Ligon, G. S. (2013). Questioning universal applicability of
transformational leadership: Examining employees with autism spectrum disorder. The
Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 608-622. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.04.003
Partnership Resource Centre (2012, May) Cross-sector partnership formation- What to consider
before you start? Retrieved from http://www.partnershipsresourcecentre.org/website/
var/assets/public/publicaties/papers/papers-2012/cross-sector_partnership_formation.pdf
Ployhart, R. E., Schneider, B., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Staffing organizations: Contemporary
practice and theory (3rd ed.) Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Ren, L. R., Paetzold, R. L., & Colella, A. (2008). A meta-analysis of experimental studies on the
effects of disability on human resource judgments. Human Resource Management
Review, 18(3), 191-203. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.001
Robinson, A. (2003). Nonprofit Partnerships With Corporations: Caution Leads to Benefits.
Shelterforce Online, 130. Retrieved from http://www.shelterforce.com/online/issues/130/
fundraising.html
Saks, A. M. (2002). Driving performance and retention through employee engagement.
Corporate Leadership Council. Cat: CLC12KYSST. Retrieved from
http://www.stcloudstate.edu/humanresources/trainingDev/supvBrownBag/documents/CL
C-Employee-Engagement.pdf
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
35
Schiller, R. S., & Almog-Bar, M. (2013). Revisiting collaborations between nonprofits and
businesses An NPO-centric view and typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 42(5), 942-962. doi: 10.1177/0899764012471753
Seitanidi, M. M., & Crane, A. (2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding
the selection, design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal
of Business Ethics, 85(2), 413-429.
Simpson, D., Lefroy, K., & Tsarenko, Y. (2011). Together and apart: Exploring structure of the
corporate–NPO relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(2), 297-311. doi:
10.1007/s10551-010-0723-7
Strickland, D. C., Coles, C. D., & Southern, L. B. (2013). JobTIPS: A transition to employment
program for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of autism and
developmental disorders, 43(10), 2472-2483. doi: 10.1007/s10803-013-1800-4
Timmons, J., Hall, A., Bose, J., Wolfe, A., & Winsor, J. (2011). Choosing employment: Factors
that impact employment decisions for individuals with intellectual disability. Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities, 49(4), 285-299. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-49.4.285
United States Department of Labor (2014). Work Opportunity Tax Credit. Retrieved from
http://www.doleta.gov/business/incentives/opptax/eta_default.cfm
Wang, S. S. (2014, Mar. 27). How autism can help you land a job: SAP, Freddie Mac recruit
autistic workers to fill roles that call for precision; debugging software. Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/
SB10001424052702304418404579465561364868556?
Wehman, P. H., Schall, C. M., McDonough, J., Kregel, J., Brooke, V., Molinelli, A., & ... Thiss,
W. (2014). Competitive employment for youth with autism spectrum disorders: Early
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
36
results from a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
44(3), 487-500. doi:10.1007/s10803-013-1892-x
Winsor, J., & Butterworth, J. (2008). Trends & milestones: Participation in integrated
employment and community-based non-work services for individuals supported by state
intellectual/developmental disabilities agencies. Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities, 46, 166–168.
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
37
Table 1
Objectives to Strengthen Inclusion & Diversity within the Corporate Business
I created appropriate plans, goals, assessments, follow ups, on-site visits, focus groups,
interventions, and other strategies with its national partners and clients to help underserved
populations find employment across the nation.
Identify nationwide distribution centers
For Diversity & Inclusion Awareness
·
Generate an understanding of what Inclusion and Diversity means in the workplace for
people with developmental disabilities.
·
Develop awareness of the linkages between inclusion and diversity and employee
engagement to be increased by detailing our Diversity & Inclusion initiative.
·
Provide strategic advice and counsel to leadership on inclusion and diversity issues that
affect their area.
·
Give recommendations to address diversity issues (e.g., looking at retention rates of
employed recruits from the list of vendors I’ve found).
For VR Partnership Engagement
·
Collaborate with senior business leadership, HR/OD, and external partners.
·
Facilitate creation and a shared understanding of diversity messaging across partnering
vendors.
·
Develop detailed recommendations of potential vendor partnerships for the review of
leadership personnel.
For Recruitment of VR agencies with OfficeMax® Distribution Centers
·
Create reports that identified potential vendor partnerships for OfficeMax®.
·
Remain proactive as change agent and facilitator for identifying diversity concerns (e.g.,
recruiting work-ready candidates whom happen to have developmental disabilities)
·
Work closely with senior business leaders, HR partners, OD consultants and other key
stakeholders throughout 24 US states in order to ensure desirable solutions met or
exceeded OfficeMax’s® business needs and objectives.
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
38
Table 2
Screening Questions for Vocational Rehabilitation Organizations (VRs)
VR Information
Years in service/ date of establishment of agency/organization
Job placement certifications and accreditations
Total number of staff members
Number of job coaches
Geographic/Logistic
Proximity to the nearest OfficeMax® Distribution Center
Transportation provided for workers to get to and/or from Distribution Center?
Placement Information
Number of workers placed per year2
Placement type: Single, enclave, or both?3
Experience with Corporate Placements
Any non-DVR (Department of Vocational Rehabilitation) contracts?
Any past or present corporate partnerships?
Calculated Variables
Job placement rates
Job retention rates
Job coach to Worker ratio (i.e., average caseload)
Staff size to Worker ratio
2
Defined as employees successfully placed and transitioned from probationary period [e.g., 30, 90, 180 days, etc.]
as fully-entitled employees
3
Single placements preferred because OfficeMax jobs are single.
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
39
Table 3
Alignment of Benefits for Partners in the Aspire-OfficeMax® Partnership
OfficeMax®
Aspire
Vocational
Rehabilitation
Agencies (VRs)
Individuals w/
Developmental
Disabilities
Financial
Tax break
incentives for
diversity &
inclusion hiring;
Private foundation
grants
Big corporate
funding for services
rendered
(identifying VR
partnerships);
Diversified revenue
stream
State funding;
Private funding
with direct
corporate employer
partnerships.
Increased personal
revenue via
employment
Social
Organizational
Improved image as socially Employees with
responsible company
valued skills; Workready employees
without in-house
training costs (VR
trains); Part-time
employees who do not
require benefits
Improved lives of persons
Placements for
with developmental
workers in supported
disabilities; Heightened
employment;
awareness of diversity &
Increased
inclusion issues, which
organizational
could lead to increased
profile/résumé and
private donations and/or
new corporate
state/government grants;
business connections;
Improved image through
Greater political
association with powerful
power within the
business
sector
Improved lives of persons
Inc. business
with developmental
personnel (corporate
disabilities; VR facility
executives)
gains increased reputation
connections.
and/or recognition for their
services
Increased self-esteem via
Training & exposure
mastery experiences as a
to new work
productive societal
experiences that may
member
lead to future
employment
opportunities.
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
40
Table 4
Collaborative Value Creation Model4 Applied to Aspire-OfficeMax® Partnership
Sole-Creation------------------------------------------------ Co-Creation
Sources of Value
Resource
Complementarity
Low-----------------------------------------------------------------X---High
Resource Nature
Generic--------------X------------------------------------------Distinctive
Competency
Resource Directionality
Unilateral----------------------------------- X ---------------- Conjoined
Linked Interests
Weak/Narrow--- X -----------------------------------------Strong/Broad
Types of Value
Associational Value
Transferred Resource
Value
Modest------------------------------- X ------------------------------- High
Interaction Value
Minimal----- X ---------------------------------------------------Maximal
Synergistic Value
Least-------------- X ---------------------------------------------------Most
Innovation
Seldom--- X ------------------------------------------------------ Frequent
Stage of Collaboration
X
Philanthropic----Transactional----Integrative----Transformational
4
Depreciable----- X --------------------------------------------Renewable
Austin & Seitanidi (2012a, 2012b)
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
41
Table 5
Potential Value of Cross-sector Partnerships
Nonprofit Organization
For-Profit Business
Financial
Funding for operations
Diversification of donor base
Improvements to operational process
Shared resources for marketing
endeavors regarding the partnership
Shared resources for marketing
endeavors regarding the partnership
Marketing
Greater organizational recognition
Branding association with business
Increased public awareness of social
issue
Improved image, credibility, especially
among younger generation customers
Branding association with social
commitment
Increased stakeholder loyalty
People/
Staffing/
Talent
Source of future job applicants
Increase in volunteers from business
partner
Diversification of volunteers and board
members
Access to business networks
Employee engagement in volunteer
projects
Improved employee morale, recruitment,
retention
Access to nonprofit networks
Intellectual
Access to expertise
New perspective and ideas
Innovation
Access to emerging technologies
Access to expertise
New perspective and ideas
Innovation
Miscellaneous
Greater political power
Costs
Diminished reputation
Loss of identity as a charitable/
humanitarian organization
Decrease in charitable funding from
other sources
More talent and other resources
required
Skepticism leading to decreased
volunteers from outside partner,
decrease in board or trustee support
Costs due to unforeseen breakdown of
partnership
More talent and other resources required
Internal or external skepticism and
scrutiny
Risk of reduced competitiveness due to
open access to innovative practices
Decreased credibility if partnership
breaks down
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
42
Figure 1. Structure of the Aspire-OfficeMax® Partnership Chain
Applicant
Current
Process
Vocational
Rehabilitation
Agency
Future
Process
RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING VIA PARTNERSHIP
43
Figure 2. Recruitment Process Model by Breaugh (2008) Applied to Aspire-OfficeMax®
Recruitment Objectives
N positions to be filled?
Type of applicant sought
KSAs (packaging)
Experience?
Diversity (dev disabl)
Time frame for filling position?
Informed by previous results:
New hire job performance?
New hire job satisfaction?
New hire retention rate?
Recruitment Activities
Recruitment methods used
VR agencies
Family groups?
Information conveyed
Complete
Realistic
Timely
Recruiters used (KCC)
Hosting interview/site visit
Applicants
VR staff?
Applicants’ family?
Extending job offer
Strategy Development
Whom to recruit?
Pre-screened by VR
Where to recruit?
VR visits
Timing of recruiting?
Finding targeted persons?
VR agencies
Message to communicate?
Whom to use as recruiters?
Warm, personable
Job incumbents
Nature of site visit/interview?
Nature of job offer?
Budget considerations
Recruitment Results
New hire job performance
New hire job satisfaction
New hire retention rate
Intervening Job
Applicant Variables
Applicant attention
Message credibility
Applicant interest
Job attractiveness
Transportation?
Alternative options
Person x J/O fit
Applicant expectations
Applicant decision-making
Include family/ VR?