Perhaps you have heard of them. They are called "retronyms" -- words that have been redefined by the advent of new technology. They range from the anachronistic "snail mail" to the quaint "black-and-white television." Once familiar and well understood, these words from the past now require a descriptive label to explain their meaning in the present and future.

Those in recruiting have seen this phenomenon occur in their own profession. They use a retronym to describe what they are about in the labor market these days. It is a war, right? But not just any war; it's a War for the "Best Talent." Thanks to the Internet, it is now necessary to add an adjective to a word that should be sufficient in and of itself.

Talent is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "a special often creative or artistic aptitude." Recruiting talented people, therefore, is the goal of every organization. Some may do it better than others, but every employer sets out, at least, to attract and hire those who have that special aptitude in the skill areas it needs to accomplish its business operations. They know they need the competitive advantage that talent provides. And they know that their probability of success declines dramatically with the "untalented."

Easy as One, Two, Three

Why, then, do recruiters now believe they have to recruit the "best talent" -- the those whose aptitude is more special than the rest? There are at least three reasons...

First, unlike other retronyms, the "best talent" isn't a pejorative term. It isn't something that technology has made obsolete, but rather something that it has made possible. By properly tapping the power of the Internet, you can reach into that very small population of the truly superior talent in the work force and present a case for these people moving to your organization.

Second, we have proof that the economic value of truly superior talent is greater -- indeed, considerably greater -- than that of even good talent. The McKinsey & Co. study that was, ironically, called "The War for Talent" provided quantified confirmation that "A"-level performers are 50% to 100% more productive than "C"-level performers. We've always know that intuitively; now we can demonstrate it with numbers so that even the chief financial officer will understand.

Third, many corporate leaders, including some in the human-resources profession itself, believe they can acquire the best talent with a minimum of fuss. All they have to do is bolt a little e-recruiting technology onto what recruiters have done in the past. There is no need to change policy or procedures -- or even the capabilities of the recruiting staff (witness the number of HR generalists being asked to recruit as an additional duty in an already overloaded day). As long as they have the Internet and a shiny, new career area on their corporate web site, pulling in the best talent is as easy as fishing in a barrel.

The first two of these reasons make sense, but the third... well, the third is just way off the mark. The best talent may be a retronym, but recruiting these individuals with the Internet isn't like using other technology. Take the television, for example. The viewer's experience is enhanced by simply flipping a switch on their color, flat-screen, high-definition, surround-sound set. As long as they can find the on/off button, they are good to go. E-Recruiting, on the other hand, requires considerable understanding and skill. The Internet doesn't enable us to recruit the best talent; that capability is achieved only with a fundamental change in the way recruiting is done -- one that is carefully designed to capture the full potential of the technology.

Not Simply a Quick Fix

What does that change involve? At a minimum, it must incorporate the following:

• A change in recruitment advertising. It doesn't do any good to use the Internet to connect with previously inaccessible populations of great workers if your message has all the appeal of a wet mop. Unfortunately, however, that is the nature of most job postings today. They are uninformative, uninspiring and therefore uninviting to all but the untalented.

  To access the best talent with the Internet, companies are going to have to change their view of the purpose and content of recruitment advertising posted through that medium. They must give it the same priority as that of their product and service advertising and develop it with the same care and creative energy. They must see their job postings not as simple notices of open positions, but as electronic advertising brochures that have the power to differentiate and sell their special value proposition as an employer.

• A change in branding. An organization's employment brand isn't conveyed via a slogan or a marketing campaign; it is, instead, the sum of the experiences that are provided to candidates throughout its recruitment process. And in many organizations, those experiences are off-putting to all but the most desperate of job seekers. Candidates are subjected to the "black hole" feel of online resume submission and to the generic content of corporate career sites; they have to endure being kept in the dark on their status as they move through the process and the frustrating inability to connect with a human being at almost any point during the process.

  To recruit the best talent, companies must redesign their processes to improve the way they touch people on the Internet. While administrative efficiency is important, the critical objective is to provide a total consumer experience that is so unique and compelling that it attracts and sells even the most reluctant (i.e., passive) of talented individuals.

• A change in individual communications. At one time or another, every employer attracts prospects. For that reason, virtually every candidate-management system on the market these days has some functionality for communicating with them. Unlike applicants, these individuals aren't yet ready to submit a resume (in fact, they probably don't have one), but they are interested in learning more about what an employer has to offer. In most cases, they are successful and employed (somewhere else) and all but ignored by the recruiting team. Why? Because the team lacks the staff with the skills and time necessary to communicate with these individuals. Doing so, however, is the one sure way to enhance the quality of a company's applicants and to cut the time and cost of reaching them in the future.

  To capture those advantages, companies must change their view of the timing and purpose of individual communications on the Internet. Their goal isn't to develop a database of static resumes, but rather to build a vast web of active relationships that nurture interest and trust among the best and brightest.

Recruiting the best talent may be a retronym -- a capability made possible by technology -- but it can't be accomplished by technology alone. Indeed, the War for the Best Talent will only be won by the "best recruiters" -- those who most effectively adapt their organizations and operations to capture the full potential of the technology.